GUIDANCE FOR ASSESSING
CHEMICAL CONTAMINANT DATA
FOR USE IN FISH ADVISORIES
Volume 4: Risk Communication
Office of Science and Technology
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
February, 1995
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures. iii
List of Tables iv
Acknowledgments vi
Section 1 Introduction... .....1
1.1 Historical Perspective 1
1.2 Purpose of This Manual 2
1.3 Organization of This Manual 3
Section 2 Health Advisory Risk Communication as a Process of Sharing
Information: An Overview .5
2.1 Problem Analysis 7
2.2 Audience Identification and Needs Assessment 7
2.3 Communication Strategy: Design and Implementation 10
2.4 Evaluation 13
2.5 Institutional Support 13
Section 3 Problem Analysis/Program Objectives. 16
3.1 The Context of the Fish Contamination Problem 16
3.2 Establishing Objectives for Health Advisory Communication
Programs 17
3.3 Problem Analysis in an Ongoing Program 22
3.4 Summary Checklist .23
Section 4 Audience Identification and Needs Assessment 24
4.1 How To Identify and Characterize Potential Target Audiences 24
4.2 Information Needs: Audience-generated 28
4.3 Information Needs: Agency or Expert-generated 38
4.4 Audience Characterization in an Ongoing Program 40
4.5 Summary Checklist. 40
i
-------
Section 5 Communication Strategy: Design and Implementation 42
5.1 Tools for the Communication Strategy 42
5.2 Pretesting the Communication Strategy 66
5.3 Implementing the Communication Strategy 70
5.4 Modifying the Communication Strategy in an Ongoing Program 71
5.5 Summary Checklist 71
Section 6 Developing, Implementing, and Interpreting a Risk Communication
Program Evaluation 74
6.1 Planning for Evaluation 74
6.2 Formative Evaluation 75
6.3 Process Evaluation 77
6.4 Summative Evaluation 79
6.5 Summary Checklist 86
Section 7 Responding to Inquiries from the Public 88
7.1 How People May View Risks 88
7.2 Strategies for Establishing Trust and Credibility 89
Section 8 References and Literature Cited 96
Section 9 Appendixes
A Summary of Health Advisory Risk Communication Programs in the
United States A-l
B Examples of Health Advisory Risk Communication Program
Documents B-l
C Example Evaluation Measurement Instruments C-l
ii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1, Risk communication process for fish consumption health advisories
(based on Velicer and Knuth 1994) 6
Figure 2.2. Problem analysis phase of the risk communication process for fish
consumption health advisories 8
Figure 2.3, Audience needs assessment phase of the risk communication
process for fish consumption health advisories 9
Figure 2.4. Strategy design and implementation in the risk communication
process for fish consumption health advisories 11
Figure 2.5. Formative, process, and summative evaluation in the risk
communication process for fish consumption health advisories 14
Figure 4.1. Conceptual diagram of the social-psychological process determining
response to fish consumption health advisories (based on Knuth et al.
1993) 29
iii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1. First-order objectives for health advisory programs as identified for
the Great Lakes region (from Knuth and Connelly 1991) 18
Table 3.2 Examples of "product statements" from health advisory risk
communication programs. These can be used to develop specific second-
order program objectives by inserting a quantitative target and
timeframe (from Knuth and Connelly 1991) 21
EXAMPLE 5.1 Sample wording for special audiences (from New York State
Health Advisory, 1994, see Appendix B) 44
EXAMPLE 5.2 Sample wording for special audiences, advising how to space meals
out over time (from Anderson et al., 1993, see Appendix B) 44
EXAMPLE 5.3 New York's general statewide advisory ( from NY Dept. of
Health, 1994 Health Advisory, see Appendix B) 45
EXAMPLE 5.4 Description of catch and release fishing (based on Oregon Health
Division advisory news release, 1994) 46
EXAMPLE 5.5 Description of contaminants in fish and their effects (from
Minnesota Fish Facts, 1994, see Appendix B) 47
EXAMPLE 5.6 List of risk-reducing strategies in addition to abiding by fish
consumption meal limits (from 1994 Minnesota Fishing Regulations) 48
EXAMPLE 5.7 How do I answer the question, "Is it safe to eat any fish that are
likely to have carcinogenic chemicals in them?" (based on Chun and Den
1992) 49
EXAMPLE 5.8 Explanation of noncarcinogenic health impacts (from Draft
Guidelines for Eating Fish from Georgia Waters, 1994, see Appendix
B) 49
EXAMPLE 5.9 Explaining health benefits of fish consumption (from NY Dept. of
Health, 1994 Health advisory, see Appendix B) 50
EXAMPLE 5.10 Comparing health risks and benefits 50
EXAMPLE 5.11 How do I answer the question, "Is it safe for me to eat this fish?"
(based on Chun and Den 1992) 51
EXAMPLE 5.12 Comparing fish contaminant programs for sport- vs.
commercially-caught fish (from "Fish Facts: Eating Minnesota Fish",
Minnesota Department of Health, 1994, see Appendix B) 51
EXAMPLE 5.13 Comparing fish contaminant programs for sport- vs. store-bought
fish (from Draft "An Expectant Mother's Guide to Eating Minnesota Fish",
Minnesota Department of Health, 1994) 52
iv
-------
EXAMPLE 5.14 Comparison of risks from eating fish with general cancer risks
(from Minnesota Fish Facts, 1994, see Appendix B) 53
EXAMPLE 5.15 Fish cleaning diagram (from Anderson et al. 1993, see Appendix
B) 53
EXAMPLE 5.16 Description of how to prepare fish and reduce contaminants (from
1993 Michigan Fishing Guide) 54
EXAMPLE 5.17 Health advisory location map (from New York State Health
Advisory, 1994, see Appendix B) 57
EXAMPLE 5.18 Health advisory table listing consumption advice (from Anderson
et al. 1993; see also Appendix B) ....58
EXAMPLE 5.19 Commanding vs. a cajoling tone (from Connelly and Knuth
1993) 59
EXAMPLE 5.20 Qualitative vs. quantitative risk comparisions (example from
Connelly and Knuth 1993) 60
EXAMPLE 5.21 Comment sheet for agency reviewers involved in health advisory
information pretests (drawn from USDHHS 1993) .68
EXAMPLE 5.22. Sample focus group questions for pretesting health advisory
materials (adapted from USDHHS 1993) 69
EXAMPLE 6.1 Knowledge areas that may be evaluated during the summative
evaluation process (from Connelly et al. 1992, see Appendix C) 81
EXAMPLE 6.2. Focus group questions for interagency evaluation of health
advisory communication programs 83
EXAMPLE 6.3. Form for recording comments about health advisory materials that
are received over the telephone or at public meetings and presentations...84
EXAMPLE 7.1 Statement acknowledging health advisory advice may change over
time (from Georgia 1994-1995 Sport Fishing Regulations guide) 94
EXAMPLE 7.2 How do I answer the question "Do you eat fish in amounts
recommended in the advisory?" 95
v
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This document was prepared under a cooperative agreement (CR 821083-01-0) between the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Cornell University. Additional financial
support was provided by the Agricultural Experiment Station, College of Agriculture and
Life Sciences, Cornell University. Dr. Barbara A. Knuth of the Human Dimensions
Research Unit within the Department of Natural Resources at Cornell University prepared
the document. Mr. Rick Hoffmann of EPA's Office of Science and Technology managed
the overall project and provided guidance and editorial comments.
A review team provided advice and comments throughout all phases of the document's
development. Their assistance is greatly appreciated. The review team members were
Pam Shubat, Minnesota Dept. of Health (who deserves special thanks for the very specific
examples and suggestions offered); Jim Colquhoun, New York State Dept. of
Environmental Conservation; Alvin Chun, USEPA Region 9; Lyn Desautels, USEPA; Jim
Amrhein, Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources; Greg Cramer, USFDA; Elaine Krueger,
Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health; Janice Cox, Tennessee Valley Authority; Anne
Watanabe, Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission; Alan Hay ton, Chuck Cox, and
Andre Vaillencourt, Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy; and Asa Wright,
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Additional review comments were provided
by Biran Abbott, Idaho Department of Health and Welfare; Laura Fadil and Jennifer
Goodwin, Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals; Gale Carlson, Missouri
Department of Health; John Hesse, Michigan Department of Public Health; Glen Patrick
and Joanne Bonnar, Washington Department of Health; Dierdre Murphy, Maryland
Department of the Environment; and Judy Shaw, New Jersey Department of
Environmental Regulation.
Agency staff in each state provided insights via telephone interviews about fish
consumption advisory risk communication programs nationwide. Many fish consumption
advisory program staff provided useful and instructive examples which can be found in the
text and the appendices of this document.
Additional staff in the Human Dimensions Research Unit at Cornell University made
valuable contributions during the development of the document. Noel Gurwick and Joseph
Cullon provided assistance in reviewing risk communication literature. Nancy Connelly
provided technical support for research cited. Nancy Bowers assisted with graphics
production. Sylvia Moravia and Margie Peech assisted with editorial production.
This volume is dedicated to the memory of Dr. Clyde "Skip" Houseknecht. We surely
miss his vision, leadership, and commitment to the environmental profession.
vi
-------
1
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Fish consumption health advisories have been issued in the United States since the
mid-19701 s. Advisories are a response to concerns about the potential negative
human health consequences of consuming chemically-contaminated fish.
Decisions to issue health advisories for a given waterbody are part of the risk
assessment and risk management processes associated with contaminant monitoring
and management programs. Sharing those recommendations with the appropriate
audiences constitutes the risk communication component of health advisory
programs.
State governments have the primary responsibility for protecting their citizens from
the risks associated with eating chemically contaminated fish (Cunningham et al.
1994). Technical assistance and guidance (such as this manual) are provided by
federal agencies, primarily by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
(Reinert et al. 1991) and the U.S. Food and and Drug Administration (USFDA).
Many states rely on USFDA consumption guidelines for advisories and have
consulted frequently with USFDA about how to address particular fish contaminant
situations.
Issuing health advisories with recommendations about limiting fish consumption and
advice about adopting other risk-reducing behaviors is one of the primary
management strategies used by states to address the potential human health impact
of contaminated fish consumption. Other strategies include longer-term
environmental remediation and pollution control activities.
Based on fish tissue contaminant monitoring, states issue local or regional fish
consumption advisories or bans. These often target certain human populations,
specific waterbodies, and specific fish and shellfish species. Advisories are
triggered when levels of contaminants detected indicate that consumption of certain
species from certain locations poses an unacceptable human health risk (USEPA
1993). Some local and tribal governments and non-government citizen and
environmental action organizations also issue fish consumption health advice.
Advisories issued by different agencies often take various forms. Flexibility in
health advisory communication is needed to: (1) address fish contamination issues
that differ among the states or other jurisdictions; (2) address the needs of diverse
target audiences (i.e., populations at risk) who differ among and within
jurisdictions; and (3) reflect philosophical differences about the role of states (and
other agencies) in the advisory process or the types of risk assessment and risk
management techniques that should be used.
Health advisory risk communication is one part of the total health advisory
program. Other components include: (1) fish tissue sampling and analysis,
gathering the contaminant data; (2) risk assessment, which involves interpreting the
contaminant data in relation to potential human exposure and possible health
effects; (3) risk management, which is the evaluation, selection, and
implementation of alternative risk control actions; and (4) health advisory program
evaluation.
-------
2
Risk management involves the analysis of the risk assessment data and development
of a set of fish consumption recommendations. These recommendations may be
specific to certain waterbodies, to certain human populations (e.g., children,
women of childbearing age), or targeted toward specific species or sizes of fish.
These recommended fish consumption limits are the core of the health advisory
information program.
The next phase of the health advisory process, risk communication, considers how
this core advice should be presented to various groups of people, and what
information should accompany the core advice to ensure people understand and
respond positively to the risk management recommendations.
The risk communication process is complicated by the complex nature of health
effects associated with eating contaminated fish. Exposure to contaminants, and
resultant health effects, may vary depending on the species and size of fish caught
at any one location, may vary between locations, and may vary according to the
fish cleaning and cooking techniques used by the fish consumer. Additionally, the
health effects associated with exposure to contaminants may vary among fish
consumers. Some chemicals pose a greater concern for reproductive and
developmental anomalies in children and people of childbearing age; others pose a
concern as carcinogens. Depending on the potential health effects, different
audiences of fish consumers will be the targets of the risk communication efforts.
The final component of the total health advisory program is evaluation. Program
effectiveness can be evaluated relative to changes in (1) human knowledge and
behavior related to fish and fish contaminants; (2) contaminant levels in humans;
and, ultimately, (3) the status of human health.
In August, 1990, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sponsored a forum for
state health, environmental quality, and fishery management agencies to identify
state needs for federal assistance related to fish consumption health advisory
programs. One need identified was assistance with the risk communication
component of health advisory programs. This manual is an outgrowth of that
expressed need.
1.2 PURPOSE OF THIS MANUAL
This manual is the fourth in a series of four documents to be prepared by the EPA
Office of Water as part of a Federal Assistance Plan to help States implement fish
consumption advisory programs. The remaining three documents provide guidance
on fish sampling and analysis (Volume 1), risk assessment (Volume 2), and risk
management (Volume 3).
Frequent references are made in this volume to the information in Volume 3, risk
management. Kisk communication is a part of risk management. Developing and
refining risk management strategies may depend on lessons learned as risk
communication programs are implemented. Thus, Volumes 3 and 4 are integrally
The purpose of this manual is to provide overall guidance to States on developing,
implementing, and evaluating health advisory risk communication programs. This
manual provides guidance only and does not constitute a regulatory
requirement for the States or other jurisdictions. The purpose of this manual is
-------
3
not to require or recommend one specific risk communication approach for all
local, state, or tribal health advisory programs, but rather to indicate which
approaches can best meet specific objectives. Agencies can analyze their own
objectives and develop a risk communication approach most suitable for their
particular needs.
This manual is intended to offer guidance about the entire health advisory risk
communication process, and serve as a resource and reference to those designing,
evaluating, and modifying health advisory risk communication programs. The
three-ring binder format was selected by EPA for the manuals in this series to
enhance their use as working documents and to facilitate inclusion of additional
refinements and updates, such as examples of newly implemented risk
communication strategies.
1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THIS MANUAL
This manual provides guidance on all aspects of health advisory risk
communication.
Section 2, Risk Communication as a Process of Sharing Information: Section 2
provides an overview of the health advisory risk communication process,
introducing each component of the process and indicating how it relates to other
components. The reader who is quite familiar with health advisory risk
communication may wish to skim or skip over this section and instead go directly to
the following sections that treat specific components of the communication process
in depth. For someone who seeks to understand the entire risk communication
process before considering its specific components in detail, this section should be
read first.
Section 3, Problem Analysis/Program Objectives; Section 3 discusses the
importance of understanding the context of the fish contamination problem when
developing a risk communication program, and suggests potential health advisory
risk communication program objectives.
Section 4, Audience Identification and Needs Assessment: Section 4 describes
the variety of audiences that may exist for health advisory risk communication
programs. Both audience-generated and expert-generated information needs are
discussed, including techniques for collecting such information.
Section 5, Communication Strategy: Design and Implementation: Section 5
reviews various communication tools, considering their ability to reach specific
audiences and help achieve communication program objectives. Tools include
advisory format and tone, potential advisory content beyond the core fish
consumption advice, information dissemination mechanisms, and the timing of
information exchange.
Section 6, Health Advisory Communication Program Evaluation: Section 6
presents suggestions for several types of evaluation of health advisory
communication programs. The purpose of each type of evaluation and appropriate
techniques for each are included.
Section 7, Responding to Inquiries from the Public: Section 7 describes how
people view risks associated with fish consumption, and discusses issues of trust
and credibility.
-------
4
Section 8: Supporting documentation for this manual is provided in Section 8,
Literature Cited, and in Appendixes A through D.
NOTE: The materials and examples cited throughout the guidance documents are
included as examples only. Inclusion of these materials does not necessarily
constitute an endorsement by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of the
content or the specific advice.
-------
5
SECTION 2
HEALTH ADVISORY RISK COMMUNICATION AS A PROCESS OF SHARING
INFORMATION: AN OVERVIEW
The objective of this section is to provide an overview of the health advisory risk
communication process. Subsequent sections of this manual fit within the general
model described in this section.
The concept of "sharing" information is emphasized in risk communication,
particularly in health advisory communication programs. Health advisories are
prepared and communicated by a variety of government agencies. Most frequently,
state health agencies are involved, but in many states environmental quality and
fishery management agencies participate in some aspect of the health advisory
program (Reinert et al., 1991). Health advice is also disseminated by other
government groups such as Cooperative and Sea Grant Extension services and local
and tribal governments, by non-government interest and advocacy groups, and
through various news media.
Health advisory recommendations are targeted toward a variety of people ~ sport
anglers, subsistence fishers, actual and potential fish consumers, high-risk groups,
and many sociodemographic groups. Sharing information, perceptions, and
understanding among these various participants is critical to successful health
advisory communication programs.
Health advisory recommendations are issued based on scientific monitoring and
estimation techniques. The science-based health advisory program often leads to
erroneous expectations that health advisories should generate a consistent, rational
response among the public, resulting in complete compliance with recommended
fish consumption levels. Such is often not the case, however.
Scientific experts may believe that their information, and hence recommendations,
are objective, reasonable, and logical. Segments of the public, however, may not
share those perceptions about the quality, and the seriousness, of the health advisory
recommendations.
Health advisory risk communication programs must be viewed as processes of
sharing information among expert and fish consumer, rather than a one-way
transfer of information from expert to public. Similarly, government agencies must
realize that agency objectives are not the only ones to be achieved through health
advisory programs.
Fish consumers bring their own objectives and desires to the fish consumption
issue. These may include desires for a satisfying fishing experience, an inexpensive
protein source, or a sense of pride at catching one's own food. The objectives and
fish consumption recommendations of the agency are one major component of the
risk communication process; the objectives and fish consumption-related behaviors
of the public are the other major component.
Springer (1990) proposed a model that could be used to guide development of
health advisory communication programs. This model grew out of the "interactive"
risk communication paradigm (Scherer, 1991), emphasizing information exchange
among agencies and the public. The model contains several essential elements (Fig.
2.1):
-------
RISK COMMUNICATION PROCESS
->~
>~
¦~
Problem Analysis
Process
Evaluation
Evaluation
Audience Needs
Assessment
Communication
Strategy
Design
Communication Strategy
Implementation
Figure 2.1 Risk communication process for fish consumption health advisories (based on
Velicer and Knuth, 1994).
-------
7
(1) problem analysis and articulation of program objectives;
(2) audience identification and needs assessment;
(3) communication strategy design;
(4) communication strategy implementation; and
(5) program evaluation.
This chapter provides an overview of the elements of the health advisory risk
communication model. Subsequent chapters treat each element of the model in
greater depth. The reader who is very familiar with health advisory risk
communication programs may wish to skim or skip over this chapter. The reader
who seeks to understand the entire process fully before considering all of the
specific elements in each phase should read this chapter first.
2.1 PROBLEM ANALYSIS
Problem analysis (Fig. 2.2) allows the risk communicator to understand the internal
and external context in which the health advisory program will be conducted. This
includes considering the social, scientific, and political context of the fish
contaminant issue in that specific location. Internal factors include agency
philosophy, staff, and resources. External factors include local and regional
economics, human population characteristics including reliance on fish
consumption, and risk characteristics of the chemicals of concern.
The problem analysis phase includes articulating specific objectives to be
accomplished through a health advisory communication program. First-order
objectives (sometimes termed "goals") are idealistic, general program outcomes that
reflect an agency's mission and mandate. Second-order objectives are specific,
measurable outcomes to be achieved by the health advisory program.
Agencies and target audiences should have a clear understanding of which
objectives are to be achieved through a health advisory communication program.
Without such understanding, it is virtually impossible to identify the "most
appropriate" health advisory communication strategies. Communicators and target
audiences alike should be aware that not all participants in health advisory programs
will share the same set of objectives, leading at times to confusion or conflict.
2.2 AUDIENCE IDENTIFICATION AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Audience identification and needs assessment includes identifying and
characterizing potential target audiences who should participate in the health
advisory communication program (Figure 2.3). Specific criteria relating to the
health advisory program objectives are used to help the risk communicator
determine potential target audiences. Through this phase, the risk communicator
analyzes what types of information and communication styles are appropriate for
each audience, providing the information base for the next phase of communication
strategy design.
-------
ADVISORY RISK COMMUNICATION:
PROBLEM ANALYSIS
2nd-order Health Advisory
. Program Objectives....
(Specific and Measurable)
1st-order Health Advisory
. Program Objectives
(Broad)
Problem Analysis & Context
I
i
i
v
Audience Identification
Figure 2.2. Problem analysis phase of the risk communication process for fish consumption
health advisories.
-------
ADVISORY RISK COMMUNICATION;
AUDIENCE IDENTIFICATION AND NEEDS
ASSESSMENT
Problem Analysis
Y
Audience Identification
t
Audience Characterization
— Demographics
- Awareness and knowledge
Beliefs and Attitudes
~ Behaviors
>
r
Audience
Input
Health Advisory Information Needs
Communication Strategy Design
Figure 2.3. Audience needs assessment phase of the risk communication process for
fish consumption health advisories.
-------
10
2.2.1 Identifying Target Audiences.
Identifying potential target audiences for health advisory communication programs
should flow from the objectives articulated during problem analysis. The
information needs of potential target audiences and the specific communication
strategies used to convey that information may differ substantially from group to
group. To achieve a variety of objectives or reach a variety of audiences, a variety
of communication strategies is usually required.
Agencies should use care during audience needs assessment to identify the universe
of target audiences necessaiy to reach. Agencies should consider both the
objectives of the health advisory communication program and the range of
behavioral and sociodemographic groups of people implied by those objectives.
2.2.2 Audience Information and Communication Needs.
Health advisory communicators should identify who the target audiences are
relative to the objectives to be achieved, and their information and communication
needs. This includes understanding what the target audiences initially know and
believe about health advisories and fish consumption, how they behave relative to
fish consumption, and what information they desire.
Perceptions of what is important to know about health advisories and fish
consumption may differ considerably between target audiences and "expert" health
advisory communicators (such as health and fishery agency professionals) (Springer
1990). If communicators design communication programs solely on their own
beliefs about what audiences should know, they may omit information or
dissemination techniques that will be most useful to the target audiences.
Audiences can and should be part of the process of identifying information needs.
2.2.3 Audience Behavior, Knowledge, and Beliefs.
Understanding the linkages between fish consumption behaviors, knowledge, and
beliefs is important for communicators. Ultimately, fish consumption is the
behavior most health advisory communication programs are designed to influence.
Related behaviors include fishing and use of potential information sources (e.g.,
fishing regulations guides, newspapers, personal communications). Understanding
which information sources will be used by audiences to receive health advisory
information is critical when designing a communication strategy. Understanding
what behaviors fish consumers engage in is necessary when deciding what existing
behaviors to reinforce or to change via health advisory messages.
2.3 COMMUNICATION STRATEGY: DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
Communication strategy design involves constructing health advisory
recommendations and information appropriate to (1) the needs of the target
audiences; and (2) the health advisory program objectives (Fig. 2.4). Strategy
implementation involves sharing this information using dissemination mechanisms
that will reach each audience of concern. The intent of this phase is to develop and
implement strategies to communicate: (1) the core fish consumption
recommendations determined through risk assessment and risk management; and (2)
any other information that will be needed by target audiences to interpret or respond
positively to the core advice.
-------
ADVISORY RISK COMMUNICATION:
STRA TEGY DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTA TION
Program Objectives
Audience Needs Assessment
Style
- Format
- Tone
- Qualitative
- Quantitative
- Reading Level
Strategy Design
Content
- Recommendations
- Health Effects
- Comparisons
- Uncertainties
- Personalizing
the message
Dissemination
- Mass media
- Specialized media
- Interpersonal
Pretesting <
'
Design Modifications
implement Strategy
Evaluation
Figure 2.4. Strategy design and implementation in the risk communication process for fish
consumption health advisories.
-------
12
A variety of tools should be considered during the design phase, including the
health advisory style (e.g., format, tone, reading level), content, and dissemination
mechanisms. During strategy design, appropriate mechanisms for evaluating the
effectiveness of the communication program should also be developed. Good
evaluations cannot be planned at the end of the communication program. Rather,
planning for useful evaluations of the effectivess of health advisory communication
programs begins during the program objective-setting stage, and continues through
communication strategy design and implementation.
2.3.1 Developing the Advisory Content.
A variety of information may be included in a health advisory beyond the core fish
consumption advice. Depending on the target audience, health advisories may
include information such as:
(1) a description of risk-reducing behaviors other than limiting or
eliminating fish consumption (e.g., fish cleaning and cooking techniques);
(2) explanations of how eating fish compares to other dietary risks;
(3) description of the negative and positive health effects associated with fish
consumption, with special emphasis on what groups of people are most
endangered by or derive the most benefit from sport-caught fish
consumption; and
(4) explanation of the assumptions and uncertainty entering into the risk
assessment-risk management process that forms the basis for issuing health
advisories.
Decisions about what information to include in any advisory should reflect the self-
identified needs of the target audiences as well as the objectives of the health
advisory program.
2.3.2 Styles for Presenting Advisory Information.
Presentation styles should meet the needs and abilities of the target audiences. Style
characteristics include advisory format, tone, mixture of qualitative and quantitative
information, and reading level.
2.3.3 Advisory Dissemination Mechanisms.
The mechanisms by which potential fish consumers receive information about
health advisories and contaminated fish consumption include interpersonal sources
(e.g., friends, government officials), mass media (e.g., newspapers, television),
and specialized media (e.g., printed fishing regulations guide, health advisory
brochure).
2.3.4 Timing of Advisory Dissemination.
Timing the release of health advisory recommendations will depend in part on what
dissemination mechanism is chosen. Health advisory recommendations to be
printed in the fishing regulations guide, for example, must be available at the time
-------
13
the guide is printed. Reminders about the advisory throughout the fishing season
may cause anglers to think more about health advisories, and lead to greater
compliance with advisory recommendations (Knuth et al., 1993).
2.4 EVALUATION
Evaluation occurs throughout the risk communication process (Fig. 2.5). It is the
critical element that helps: (1) ensure a health advisory communication program is
being designed to meet the needs of the target audiences and the objectives of the
agency; (2) monitor whether the communication program is being implemented as
intended; and (3) assess to what extent audience needs and agency objectives have
been met. Throughout the risk communication process it is critical to include
activities, benchmarks, and milestones that require formative, process, and
summative evaluation data to be collected and used.
During any of these evaluation processes, new communication issues or problems
or previously unidentified audiences or audience needs may surface. When this
happens, the health advisory communication program cycles back to the initial steps
of the process, problem analysis and audience needs assessment (Fig. 2.5).
Evaluation may result in modifications to one or more elements of the
communication program.
2.4.1 Formative Evaluations
Formative evaluation occurs as program objectives are selected, audience
information needs identified, and the communication strategy planned. Formative
evaluations are designed to assess the likelihood of attaining program objectives, by
assessing the appropriateness of potential objectives and the strengths and
weaknesses of alternative communication strategies.
2.4.2 Process Evaluations
Process evaluation occurs as the communication strategy is implemented. Process
evaluations focus on the correspondence between communication strategy design
and implementation. These evaluations are designed to assess to what extent
communication strategies are being implemented as planned, and to assess the
adequacy of administrative, personnel, or other resources necessary to keep the
communication program on track.
2.4.3 Summative Evaluations
Summative evaluations are sometimes termed outcome and/or impact evaluations.
Summative evaluation occurs at the end of the communication program, focusing on
outcomes achieved, especially outcomes relative to the program objectives
articulated at the start of the communication process. These evaluations are
designed to document short- or long-term results of health advisory communication
programs. Evaluators assess whether or not objectives were achieved.
2.5 INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT
A successful comprehensive health advisory risk communication program, as
described in this model, requires institutional support of all program components.
This includes philosophical and budgetary support from the agency administration
and staff and any oversight organizations (e.g., state legislature with budget
-------
ADVISORY RISK COMMUNICATION:
EVALUATION
>-
>-
¦>»
Program Objectives
Program Objectives
Audience Information Needs
Communication Strategy Plans
Communication Strategy Plans
Communication Strategy
Implementation
Communication Strategy
Implementation
Audience Characteristics
- Before program
- After program
Process Evaluation
- Are plans being
implemented as
intended?
Symmativ? Evaluation
- Have program objectives
been achieved?
- What changes in audience
have occurred?
- What changes in problem
context have occurred?
Formative evaluation
- Is problem analysis
sufficient?
- Is audience characters
Will plans meet objectives?
Will plans meet audience
needs?
Figure 2.5. Formative, process, and summative evaluation in the risk communication process
for fish consumption health advisories.
-------
15
oversight), as well as appropriate staffing needs. Commitment from the agency's
decision-makers and from the ground-level staff with daily public contact are both
critical to successful communication efforts. Agency credibility is destroyed if
personnel within the agency publicly question the validity or seriousness of health
advisory fish consumption recommendations, either outright or by publicizing a
lack of staff adherence to recommended fish consumption limits.
Staffing a health advisory risk communication program requires personnel with
specialized training in risk communication, but not necessarily with risk
communication as the only job responsibility. The degree of training required and
the amount of time spent on the program depend on program objectives, diversity
and needs of target audiences, complexity of the information needs of target
audiences, and the relative emphasis placed on health advisory risk communication
programs within the context of the total agency.
Necessary institutional support of risk communication programs suggested by the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for all types of public health
agencies includes (USDHSS, 1993):
(1) a capacity to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of health risk
communication messages, materials, and programs, including a clear
set of criteria and methods for such evaluation;
(2) a set of guidelines for effective health risk communication that is used by
the agency; and
(3) greater coordination of health risk communication programs between
similar agencies.
For health advisory programs, this may translate into institutional support for:
- adopting specific health advisory communication program objectives and
desired outcomes (see Section 3 of this manual),
- staff with the knowledge and abilities to evaluate health advisory programs
(see Section 6), and
- greater coordination and communication between agencies within the same
state (e.g., health, environmental quality, fishery management) or
between similar agencies in different states (e.g, health agencies
within a given region).
Particularly for fish consumption health advisories, establishing a multi-agency risk
communication team may be necessary. In many states, health, environmental
protection, and fishery management programs are in separate agencies, yet each
agency has some role to play in the health advisory process, including
communication. These agencies may have conflicting objectives, which will be
reflected in the way in which the health advisory program is viewed and supported.
These agencies also have different relationships with members of the public. For
example, a recreational angler may contact a fishery management agency for health
advisory information, even if the health department is the "official" issuing agency.
For these reasons, an interagency team assigned to develop mutually agreeable
communication objectives and to design and implement the communication program
may be essential to a successful health advisory program.
-------
16
SECTION 3
PROBLEM ANALYSIS/PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
The primary objectives of this section are to: (1) discuss why the context of the
fish contamination problem triggering the health advisory should be considered
during the risk communication process; and (2) describe potential health advisory
communication program objectives.
3.1 THE CONTEXT OF THE FISH CONTAMINATION PROBLEM
Fish contamination and the need for health advisories occur in a social, scientific,
political, and economic context. Fish consumption health advisories would not be
required if the contaminated waterbody was not of interest to and used by people.
It is likely that a health advisory program will have an impact on the perceptions
and activities of a variety of people associated with that waterbody. This may
include anglers fishing that location, the families of anglers who may wish to eat
the fish caught, or the businesses supporting the angler through tackle sales or
lodging.
Agencies should expect that those people affected (economically, socially,
culturally, psychologically) will demand a clear, concise explanation of the
rationale for health advisories, and the validity of the underlying assumptions.
Agencies should also expect that the response of individuals to health advisory
recommendations will differ based on their own understanding of the
recommendations, and their perception of the implications of those
recommendations for their existing lifestyle.
Health advisory risk communicators, therefore, should assess a set of external and
internal factors to fully understand the context of the risk communication problem
before moving forward with selecting program objectives and developing
communication strategies. Without an understanding of the context in which the
health advisory risk communication is to occur, unrealistic program objectives may
be articulated, and communication strategies doomed to failure may be selected.
External factors to consider include:
(1) the extent of and degree of certainty about the health problem associated
with contaminated fish, including likely severity and frequency of
adverse health effects;
(2) the characteristics of the community to be affected by the health
advisoiy, including past relationships with the agency, and the
industries or activities supporting its economic base (e.g., is the
community tied closely to for-profit recreational fishing enterprises?;
are anglers current or former employees of the industry who may
have worked with chemicals all their lives and so be wary of health
advisory credibility?);
(3) the importance of the affected waterbody to the community culture (e.g.,
is the community's subsistence food source tied to the affected
water?);
-------
17
(4) interagency arrangements and coordination; and
(5) existing public perceptions and behaviors.
Internal factors to consider include:
(1) intra-agency support such as staff and budget;
(2) agency mandate and mission; and
(3) relative importance of health advisories among the variety of agency
responsibilities.
3.2 ESTABLISHING OBJECTIVES FOR HEALTH ADVISORY
COMMUNICATION PROGRAMS
The context of the fish contamination situation, discussed above, will influence the
selection of health advisory communication program objectives. Objectives should
be selected that are appropriate to the agency's mission and mandate, and to the fish
contamination circumstances the health advisory program is designed to address.
See Volume 3 in this series, Risk Management, for discussion of the impacts that
may result from health advisory risk management programs. Communication
program objectives should be developed to help attain desirable impacts and avoid
undesired impacts.
3.2.1 Types of Objectives
Objectives may be of two types. First-order objectives (sometimes termed "goals")
are idealistic, general program outcomes that reflect an agency's mission and
mandate. Because they are stated in general terms, first-order objectives are not
usually measurable outputs. Second-order objectives, however, are specific,
measurable outcomes to be achieved by the health advisory program.
Second-order objectives may focus on implementation activities (e.g., number of
health advisory brochures to be distributed to low-income women) or products
(e.g., changes to be produced in angler behavior). Second-order objectives provide
an important basis for audience identification and communication strategy design,
and are critical for purposes of later program evaluation. Summative evaluation
will measure whether or not the second-order objectives were achieved.
A range of potential first- and second-order objectives for health advisory programs
exists. Knuth and Connelly (1991) surveyed Great Lakes region state agencies to
determine what the states considered to be important objectives. Five major groups
of first-order objectives were identified, including those focused on: (1) human
health risk reduction; (2) enabling people to make their own, informed, decisions
about fish consumption; (3) educating about risk-reducing fish preparation methods;
(4) public support and resource use; and (5) the need to follow agency mandates
(Table 3.1).
-------
18
Table 3.1 First-order objectives for health advisory programs as identified for the
Great Lakes region (from Knuth and Connelly, 1991).
Human Health Risk Reduction
Reduce public health risks associated with consumption of fish.
Reduce health risks to licensed sport anglers.
Reduce health risks to special at-risk groups of people.
Reduce health risks to people who rely on fish as a subsistence food resource.
Reduce health risks to unlicensed anglers.
Informed Individual Decisions
Allow people to make their own, informed decision about eating locally-caught
fish.
Help people select lesser-contaminated species of fish to eat.
Motivate people to keep their consumption of locally-caught fish within the levels
listed in the advisory.
Inform people about safe species and/or locations to fish.
Maximize overall public health associated with appropriate nutritional choices
adjusted for individual circumstances and risk.
Risk-reducing Fish Preparation Methods
Help people select risk-reducing fish cleaning and cooking methods.
Public Support and Resource Use
Encourage public support for programs to reduce or clean up toxic contamination
in local waters.
Motivate people to take action to clean up or stop pollution of local waters.
Encourage public support for fishery management in local waters.
Encourage beneficial uses of sport-fishery resources.
Protect tourism-based economies from sudden changes or losses.
Follow Agency Mandates
Meet legal mandates of government agencies.
-------
19
3.2.2 Assigning Priorities to Objectives
The priority assigned to health advisory program objectives such as those in Table
3.1 sets the stage for the subsequent phases of the health advisory communication
process. For example, if licensed sport anglers are selected as the priority health
risk reduction objective, the next phase - target audience characterization - will be
limited to that group, rather than focusing on other audiences.
Agencies within the same state may differ in the priority they assign to health
advisory objectives. In the Great Lakes study (Knuth and Connelly, 1991), priority
objectives differed by type of agency (i.e., health, environmental quality, fishery
management) involved in the health advisory program. When involved in multi-
agency health advisory programs, staff should be aware that agency mandates,
philosophy, and traditional clientele will influence the selection of program
objectives, identification of important target audiences, and, indeed, each element
of the health advisory communication process. Identifying the commonalities in
purpose rather than highlighting the differences is the first step toward
increasing interagency effectiveness within a state.
3.2.3 Establishing Second-order Objectives
Ideally, specific objectives relative to each target audience will be established.
Measurable, or second-order, objectives provide guidance during the development
and implementation of the communication strategy about who to contact and with
what message. Second-order objectives provide the criteria against which
evaluation data are compared to eventually judge the success of the communication
program. When writing second-order objectives, consider how program evaluation
will be conducted. Ideally, the evaluation plan will be written at the same time as
objectives. Second-order objectives should include a target date or time period so
evaluators know when results should be anticipated (e.g., achieve by April, 1998).
Second-order objectives may be activity-oriented or product-oriented. Activity-
oriented objectives indicate what specific activities are expected during the
communication strategy implementation phase. Product-oriented objectives indicate
what those activities are expected to produce.
Measurable activity-oriented objectives specify the activities that will be completed
during the health advisory communication program, e.g.:
"Distribute 30,000 health advisory brochures by March, 1996."
"Conduct 25 health advisory information meetings for sporting groups
statewide during 1995."
"Conduct training sessions for at least 250 health professionals associated
with low-income women's health care programs during 1995."
"Post 100 health advisory signs at access points along Lake Ontario by June,
1996."
-------
20
Measurable product-oriented objectives specify what the health advisory program is
expected to accomplish, e.g.;
"Achieve awareness of the health advisory among 90% of licensed anglers
by 1996," or
"Achieve compliance with fish consumption recommendations among 75%
of women of childbearing age residing in counties bordering the Great Lakes
by 1997."
It is often easier and less costly to evaluate to what extent activity-oriented
objectives have been met than to evaluate to what extent product-oriented objectives
have been met. Evaluation of activity-oriented objectives often requires only good
bookkeeping. Evaluation of product-oriented objectives may require costly or
involved new measurements.
For example, to evaluate an activity-oriented objective "to distribute 25,000 fish
advisory booklets by April, 1996", a bookkeeper can track how many were printed,
and of those, how many were left in April, 1996. To evaluate a product-oriented
objective such as "achieve a level of 80% of anglers receiving the fish advisory who
follow the recommendations by April, 1996", a survey of a statistically-valid
sample of anglers may be required.
When writing objectives, consider including a mix - some that can be evaluated
with little cost, and others that may require more evaluation resources, particularly
if the latter address the outcomes you hope to achieve through your communication
program. You may find later you do not have the resources (staff, time, money) to
conduct the type of evaluation needed to confidently assess whether an outcome has
been achieved or not. You may, however, be able to seek the resources needed to
conduct the evaluation. If your communication plan does not include such product-
oriented objectives that require evaluation of outcomes, you will have little basis
from which to request more evaluation resources.
Examples of product-oriented evaluation measures are listed in Table 3.2. Items on
the list may be modified to be used as specific, measurable second-order objectives
by inserting a target number to be achieved (e.g., a specific percent awareness of
the advisory among licensed anglers) and a date by which it is to be achieved.
Specificity of these objectives is critical. They provide a foundation for identifying
target audiences and designing the communication strategy, and a basis for
summative evaluation discussed in Section 6 of this manual.
What a risk communication program should achieve is not influenced only by the
agency's objectives. Rather, the target audience may have distinct needs and
objectives associated with the health advisory program (see Section 4). The needs
of the target audience, once assessed, may cause revision of the original agency-
identifed list of program objectives.
-------
21
Table 3.2 Examples of "product statements" from health advisory risk
communication programs. These can be used to develop specific second-order
program objectives by inserting a quantitative target and timeframe (from Knuth
and Connelly 1991).
Angler Awareness
Extent of awareness of the advisory among licensed anglers.
Extent to which anglers are aware if they are fishing for a species with an
advisory or not.
Extent to which anglers are aware if they are fishing in a body of water with an
advisory or not.
Extent of awareness of the advisory among the general public.
Consumption Maintained at Advisory Level
Extent to which anglers maintain their fish consumption at or slightly below the
levels in the advisory.
Extent to which women of childbearing age maintain their fish consumption at or
slightly below the levels in the advisory.
Extent to which children maintain their fish consumption at or slightly below the
levels recommended in the advisory.
Extent to which other fish consumers (non-anglers) maintain their fish
consumption at or slightly below the levels in the advisory.
Extent to which anglers practice catch-and-release fishing instead of keeping the
fish to eat when fishing for species affected by contaminants.
Consumption Significantly Below Advisory Level
Extent to which children reduce their fish consumption far below the levels in the
advisory.
Extent to which women of childbearing age reduce their fish consumption far
below the levels in the advisory.
Extent to which anglers reduce their fish consumption far below the levels in the
advisory.
Extent to which other fish consumers (non-anglers) reduce their fish consumption
far below the levels in the advisory.
(Continued on next page.)
-------
22
(Table 3.2. Continued from previous page.)
Angler Behavior
Extent to which anglers change the target species they fish for to avoid those
species more likely to accumulate contaminants.
Extent to which anglers change the size of fish they keep to avoid larger fish more
likely to have accumulated contaminants.
Extent of angler use of fish cleaning and cooking methods that may reduce
contaminants consumed.
Extent to which anglers change the locations they fish to avoid contaminated
waters.
Extent to which anglers reduce their frequency of fishing.
Extent to which fishing license sales change due to advisories.
3.3 PROBLEM ANALYSIS IN AN ONGOING PROGRAM
Problem analysis and setting objectives are not unique to new health advisory
programs. Ongoing health advisory communication programs should also be
reviewed regularly (see Section 6, Evaluation).
Changes in any of the key external or internal factors of the fish contaminant
problem, discussed in Section 3.1, may result in a new definition of the
communication problem, and thus new program objectives. As a communication
program is implemented, new audiences, or additional needs of existing audiences,
may be identified. If current audiences are being reached by, mid responding to,
health advisory recommendations, agencies should consider redirecting program
objectives to meet the needs of other target audiences not previously addressed.
Program planning, budget decisions, and objectives should be modified to maintain
past program successes while meeting the information needs of more or new target
audiences.
Fish consumption or other behavioral recommendations produced through the risk
assessment and risk management processess may change. Better information about
actual fish consumption patterns within a community may lead to use of a different
fish consumption rate in risk assessment calculations, leading to different
recommendations for a health advisory. The environmental conditions prompting
the need for a health advisory may change, creating a need to change the health
advice. Any changes within the risk assessment or risk management processes may
demand changes in the risk communication process. Frequent changes in risk
assessment (see Volume 2 in this series) or risk management (see Volume 3 in this
series) approaches that result in modified fish consumption recommendations should
be avoided, however. Even excellent communication programs cannot surmount
the credibility issues that are created when fish consumption health advice is
constantly modified, especially if those modifications are due to changes in the
decision-making process rather than real changes in contaminant levels.
-------
23
Each of these changes in the communication context and changes in underlying
assumptions, environmental conditions, or target audiences, may cause the original
problem analysis to become obsolete. Because health advisory program objectives
are based on the problem analysis, objectives may also be obsolete. Regular review
is required to ensure the original program assumptions are still relevant, and that
the original program objectives should still be pursued.
Even if no obvious or major changes in environmental conditions or risk assessment
procedures have changed, periodic review of the problem definition and the
objectives is required. As communication programs are implemented, they should
have an effect on the target audiences. As changes occur within target audiences,
communication program objectives may also need to change. For example,
imagine an initial program objective to "achieve 50% awareness of advisories."
After the communication program has been implemented, that objective may be
changed to "maintain a 50% awareness", or "achieve 75% awareness of
advisories."
Only with continual review of the problem definition and the relevancy of
objectives will ongoing communication programs continue to improve.
3.4 SUMMARY CHECKLIST
1. Assess external factors influencing the health advisory communication context.
2. Assess internal factors influencing the health advisory communication context.
3. Identify and prioritize first-order objectives for the health advisory
communication program.
4. Identify and prioritize second-order objectives for the health advisory
communication program.
5. Review and revise problem analysis and program objectives periodically.
-------
24
SECTION 4
AUDIENCE IDENTIFICATION AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The objectives of this section are to: (1) suggest potential target audiences for
health advisory risk communication programs; (2) discuss the utility of audience-
generated and expert-generated risk communication information needs; (3) describe
potential information needs; and (4) describe potential techniques for determining
information needs for specific programs.
4.1 HOW TO IDENTIFY AND CHARACTERIZE POTENTIAL TARGET
AUDIENCES
4.1.1 Importance of Audience Identification
Audience segmentation is the practice of identifying and grouping people who
should be receiving health advisory information. The segments thus identified are
termed "target audiences." Criteria for segmenting audiences usually include some
combination of behavioral, demographic, and cultural parameters.
Audience segmentation allows the risk communicator to design messages and
dissemination mechanisms that have the greatest potential for reaching particular
target audiences. Some of the most successful forms of health advisory audience
segmentation recognize: (1) the behaviors and attitudes sought as program
outcomes; and (2) the dissemination channels that could be used within the
communication program.
For example, an agency might focus on a target audience of "low-income women of
childbearing age who live in counties adjacent to the Great Lakes." Such an
audience could be selected for several reasons, e.g.:
(1) the fish consumption behavior of women of childbearing age is often a
critical factor in protecting public health relative to reproductive and
developmental effects;
(2) low-income communities may have a greater tendency to eat locally-
caught fish subject to advisories; and
(3) residents of counties bordering the waterbody of concern may be more
likely to eat locally-caught fish.
Messages targeted specifically to this audience could be designed to focus on the
reproductive and developmental hazards associated with contaminated fish
consumption, and the alternatives to eating locally-caught fish. Dissemination
mechanisms could be designed to capitalize on the likely information-gathering
behavior of this group. Health advisory information could be disseminated through
local health clinics, especially those serving low-income women, or through public
assistance and education programs targeted toward low-income women, such as
programs through local Cooperative Extension.
4.1.2 Relationship to Objectives
The risk communicator should review the health advisory communication program
objectives to determine which audiences to target through health advisory
-------
25
communication programs. Both first-order and second-order objectives provide
guidance for identifying audiences of interest (See Section 3). Objectives may
specify explicit types of audiences (e.g., licensed anglers, women of childbearing
age) or people within specific locations (e.g., residents of counties bordering
contaminated waters). During the audience identification stage, at-risk audiences
not recognized during the problem analysis phase may be identified. Program
objectives should be modified to reflect emphasis on those new audiences of
concern.
See Volume 3 in this series, Risk Management, for a discussion of potential
cultural, societal, and economic impacts considered in fish consumption health
advisory risk management decisions. These possible impacts will provide insight
about potential target audiences for the risk communication program.
4.1.3 Potential Audiences to Consider
Target audiences may be identified based on criteria of audience fish consumption
behavior, potential health effects, information an agency seeks to instill,
information sources used, or cultural and demographic characteristics. Objectives
for overall risk management and for health advisory communication should be
considered when identifying target audiences. Audience segmentation is most
successful when individuals within a particular audience have similar information
content needs and can be reached through similar information dissemination
mechanisms.
See Volume 3 in this series, Risk Management, for discussion of populations at risk
and fish consumption patterns to be considered in the risk management process.
Each population of concern identified in the risk management process should be
considered a potential target audience for the risk communication program.
Potential target audiences include:
General public statewide. Purpose may be to raise awareness of fish
contamination issues generally, and to reach potential fish
consumers. Potential fish consumers not easily identified include
those who may receive "gift fish" from angler friends, those who eat
fish from the marketplace, or those who may begin to fish in the
future. This audience must be informed to work actively for
pollution controls and remediation activities for the ultimate
resolution of fish contamination problems.
General public at contaminated locales. Purpose same as for statewide
general public, but communications are targeted to local
contamination issues.
Licensed anglers statewide. Purpose may be to create awareness of the
state health advisory program, to inform all anglers (i.e., people who
fish) of general health advisory information (e.g., health effects,
risk-reducing fish preparation techniques), to ensure anglers either
have or know how to obtain health advisory information pertinent to
the locations they fish most frequently, and to instill a moral
commitment in these anglers not to give fish away to others without
also giving the health advice. Specifying licensed anglers suggests a
mechanism through which communication can occur, i.e., printed
-------
26
materials associated with the license-purchase. Specifying licensed
anglers also overlooks individuals who do not or are not required to
purchase a license (e.g., children below the age at which a license is
required; marine anglers in many marine states).
Licensed anglers at specific locales. Certain locations may merit intensive
communication efforts due to the frequency of fishing, the severity
of the contamination problem, or other characteristics. Specifying
licensed anglers has the limitations noted above for statewide licensed
anglers.
Unlicensed anglers. Purpose may be to reach those anglers who are either
not required to purchase a license (e.g., marine anglers in many
states with fresh and marine waters), or those fishing without a
license illegally. Normally, more specific audience definition is
needed to be able to target the information program appropriately
(e.g., marine anglers, children, elderly, low-income anglers, native
communities).
Recipients of fish from anglers. These individuals may be family or
friends of anglers. They may be children, women of childbearing
age, or other at-risk groups. The responsibility and ability of the
angler to communicate health advisory information to these
individuals should be considered. Reaching this group shares the
communication challenges of reaching the general public.
Sporting groups. These groups are often composed of anglers and
outdoorspeople who are on average more committed and involved in
the fishing experience than their non-affiliated peers. Behavior
changes (recommended in a health advisory) that focus on
maintaining the fishing experience as part of the lifestyle of these
anglers may be key to stimulating health-protective behaviors.
Women of childbearing age. This audience may or may not be the same as
or associated with other audiences noted above. Women of
childbearing age may be anglers, or may be in the household of or
neighbor to an angler. Particular health effects information critical
to this audience may be transmitted directly to individuals in this
audience, or through other conduits such as the household angler or
specialized women's services such as health clinics.
Children. As with women of childbearing age, children may or may not be
anglers themselves. Children may participate in certain activities
(e.g., sportfishing clubs), or have certain information needs (e.g.,
catch-and-release fishing ethic) that will influence communication
strategies. Children may also be an effective conduit to reach adults
with health advisory information.
Non-English speaking communities. In addition to requiring health
advisory information that is presented in the native language, these
communities also often require communication programs that are
sensitive to the cultural norms of the society. For example, fish may
have a certain religious or spiritual significance, or people may be
totally unaccustomed to risk-reducing fish cleaning and cooking
-------
27
techniques. Certain communities may not rely on or use print media
at all, and therefore require other modes of communication.
Subsistence fish consumers. These individuals rely on fish consumption as
a protein source in their diet, implying relatively high consumption
levels, and possibly few alternative protein sources available.
Clients of specific programs (e.g., health care, low-income assistance).
Programs of particular importance for health advisory
communication are identified based on the clients they serve, and the
level of risk to which those clients may be exposed.
For example, women of childbearing age, a particular target
audience, may be further segmented into women who use public
health clinics. Low income subsistence fish consumers may be
segmented into those who use low-income assistance or nutrition
programs. Non-English speaking audiences may be further
segmented into those who use English language tutorial programs.
People with certain health conditions that predispose them to greater
potential risk or benefit from fish consumption can be identified
within health care programs (see also Volume 3 in this series). For
example, people with heart disease may benefit from additional fish
consumption; people with chronic diseases requiring medication may
be concerned about potential interactions with chemical contaminants
ingested during fish consumption. Identifying program clients
indicates a potentially effective communication mechanism, i.e.,
communicate health advisory information via normal program
delivery.
Professionals delivering specific services (e.g., health care, English
language tutorials, low-income assistance). Professionals delivering
programs to other target audiences may themselves be a target
audience. Unless they understand the importance of health advisory
information, they are unlikely to assist with the delivery of that
information to their own clients.
4.1.4 Importance of Information Needs: Audience-Generated vs. Expert-Generated
Perceptions among the public about the seriousness of many types of environmental
risk often differ, and public perceptions differ from expert conclusions (Scherer,
1991; Velicer and Knuth, in press). In some cases, expert risk assessments suggest
a low threat, but the public perceives a serious threat. In other cases, experts
suggest a serious danger whereas public audiences perceive little or no danger.
Experts must understand how their messages will be received, interpreted, and
responded to by target audiences. Such understanding will help them be able to
develop and use convincing reasons that encourage compliance with health advisory
fish consumption recommendations.
Often, an expert's perception will differ considerably from that of target audiences
regarding what information is important for making a decision whether to follow
health advisory recommendations or not. Further, an expert's perception of
existing beliefs and behaviors within a target audience may not be accurate. Expert
perceptions should be tested and confirmed by gathering such information directly
-------
28
from the target audience as possible within the limits of the health advisory
program.
Many factors influence how an individual perceives the seriousness of a given risk.
For health advisories, these factors may include internal cues such as prior
experience, age, health, gender, and economic status of the potential fish consumer;
and external cues such as the level of confidence and credibility associated with the
source of the risk information, and the importance and perceptions of other people
within the social circle of the potential fish consumer.
If an angler has eaten the fish she catches for many years, has had no noticeable
adverse health effects, and then learns there is a health risk associated with eating
those fish, she may not heed the warning, believing that the health problem would
have already surfaced if the threat was real. If health warnings appear to be
targeted most strongly toward women of childbearing age because of the wording
used, older men, for example, may pay little or no attention to advice to limit fish
consumption. If few alternative food sources exist because of an economic inability
to attain other sources of protein, fish consumption limits may go unheeded, even
though other risk-reducing behaviors may be available, such as trimming the fat
from the fish. If the agency issuing the health advisory has a poor track record of
responding to public needs or of honest communication, few potential fish
consumers may heed the warnings issued.
4.2 INFORMATION NEEDS: AUDIENCE-GENERATED
Target audiences are the most accurate source of data necessary for planning a
health advisory communication strategy that will respond to the needs and
limitations of the target audiences. Data collected from target audiences include
factors believed to be important by the health advisory agency (e.g., baseline
advisory knowledge within the target audience), and factors identified by the
audiences as being important (e.g., expressed needs for information about relative
health risks from various protein sources).
4.2.1 Types of Information Needs
Awareness, beliefs, and behaviors associated with health advisories and
consumption of locally-caught fish are integrally linked (Knuth, 1990). A social-
psychological model of the relationship among these factors (Fig. 4.1) has been
proposed, based on a series of theoretical and empirical studies (Connelly et al.,
1992; Knuth et al., 1993). The model suggests each of these types of information
may be necessary for planning, implementing, and evaluating a health advisory
communication program. What are the external variables, level of awareness, set
of beliefs, and existing behaviors among the target audiences?
In this model, several types of variables are important to consider in a
communication program. External variables are the characteristics of the audience
itself that influence which health advisory information sources will be used, and
how information may be interpreted in an individual or societal context. External
variables include: age; gender; residence; income; education; race or ethnicity;
family status; prior fishing experience; and the source of information an individual
uses to learn about health advisories. External variables are also required to
categorize potential target audiences for health advisory communication efforts and
to assess differences in response among the various audiences.
-------
FACTORS AFFECTING FISH CONSUMPTION
29
AGE
GENDER
EDUCATION
INCOME
RESIDENCE
RACE i
FAMILY
Ilpllli
l§lpl»!
J ' • !.' . '*.
INFORMATION
SOURCES
FISHING
1 EXPERIENCE
J
ADVISORY
AWARENESS AND
KNOWLEDGE
FISH-EATING
EXPERIENCE
(0
111
0
3
I-
1
a
CO
u.
Ill
~
111
m
- locations fished
- species sought
- fishing frequency
FISHING-RELATED
- information channels used
- frequency of use
INFORMATION-RELATED
- accessibility
- adequacy
INFORMATION SOURCES
- importance to lifestyle
- sense of control
- perception of outcomes
FISHING AND FISH
CONSUMPTION
- perceptions of
others' beliefs
- motivation to comply
with others
- motivation to take
action
NORMATIVE ISSUES
- from all sources
- from specific waters
- amounts and frequencies
- species
- locations
- preparation methods
FISH CONSUMPTION
BEUEFS/AtnTUPES ABOUT;
Q?
0
1
LU
m
Figure 4.1. Conceptual diagram of the social-psychological process determining response to fish
consumption health advisories (based on Knuth et al., 1993).
-------
30
Beliefs about the health advisory and about fish consumption are influenced by
other factors. These include beliefs about the health advisory information sources,
an individual's knowledge, and individual beliefs about the pertinence of that
information. Understanding initial beliefs among target audiences will help the
communicator design responsive communication programs.
Ultimately, health advisories target behavior. Behaviors related to fish consumption
include: general fish-eating habits and consumption of fish listed in the health
advisories; fish cleaning and cooking techniques; and fishing behavior (e.g.,
locations fished, species sought). Communicators must understand pre-
communication program behaviors to (1) design effective communications that will
influence behaviors; and (2) be able to measure what effect the communication
program has had on fish consumption-related behavior.
Health advisory communicators can generate a range of target audience information
needs based on the initial (pre-communication program) status of health advisory
knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors among the target audiences, and other self-
identified needs from the audiences.
4.2.1.1 Initial knowledge and beliefs
The social-psychological model of responses to health advisories suggests that
knowledge and beliefs associated with health advisories and fish consumption are
important influences on fish consumption behavior. Health advisory program
objectives may include achieving a specific level of awareness or knowledge about
health advisories in target audiences. Therefore, an initial understanding of target
audience knowledge and beliefs is important for designing the appropriate
communication strategy as well as evaluating the effectiveness of communication
efforts.
Health advisory awareness can be assessed as general recognition that health
advisories exist within a state, or as specific recognition of waters and fish species
listed in health advisories.
Beliefs that have been linked empirically to fish consumption behavior include
beliefs about:
- the safety of eating any fish from local waters;
- the safety of eating some types of fish from local waters;
- the health risks posed by eating fish from local waters;
- the relative importance of health risks vs. health benefits associated with
fish consumption;
- the link between consumption of fish from local waters over many years
and potential health risks;
- the importance of following health advisory recommendations; and
- the extent to which the individual has complied with advisories in the past.
-------
31
4.2.1.2 Initial behavior
If health advisory programs judged program success solely by strict
compliance with recommended fish consumption levels, success would be
difficult to achieve. In a nonregulatory program, agencies have little
leverage to stimulate adherence to the recommendations among target
audiences. Behaviors that are important to health advisory program success
include more than just the fish-eating habits of target audiences. Rather,
agencies may choose to judge program success based on the degree of
change in a host of behaviors related to fish consumption. Highly
committed anglers, and anglers fishing regionally unique (but contaminated)
fisheries, have shown tendencies to adopt risk-reducing fish preparation
behaviors but not necessarily to abide by the fish consumption rates
recommended in the advisories (e.g., Connelly et al., 1992; Connelly and
Knuth, 1993).
The range of behaviors that could be assessed for health advisory programs
include the following. Measurement of these behaviors prior to initiation of
a new communication program, or the next phase of an existing
communication program, will provide baseline information on which to base
post-program evaluations of impact. Understanding these behaviors also
increases the ability of the health advisory communicator to develop a
communication program responsive to the needs of the target audiences.
- Fish consumption. This measure includes overall fish
consumption, from all sources, as well as fish consumption
from waters affected by health advisories. Fish consumption
patterns provide the health advisory communicator with an
understanding of the current behavior of the target audience
relative to the specific fish consumption recommendations of
the advisory. The degree of change in behavior necessary to
meet advisory recommendations will be evident.
- Fish preparation methods. These methods include both fish
cleaning and cooking procedures. Certain methods decrease
the amount of human exposure to contaminants through
consumption, for some fish species and for some
contaminants (see Volume 3 in this series, Risk
Management). Contaminant reductions are limited to those
contaminants that tend to accumulate in fatty tissues (e.g.,
PCBs) rather than in muscle (e.g., mercury). Effects may be
most pronounced in relatively fattier fish. Risk-reducing
cleaning techniques include removing the dorsal and ventral
fat, removing skin, and filleting the fish. Consumption of
viscera should always be discouraged since the levels of
chemical contaminants found there are much higher than in
the edible fillets. Risk-reducing cooking methods include
those that allow the fat to drain from the fish tissue, such as
baking, broiling, and grilling. Understanding the extent of
use of these techniques can indicate the extent to which risk-
reduction might occur through a means other than outright
decreases in fish consumption. Alternatively, if initial
behaviors indicate a majority of fish consumers have adopted
risk-reducing fish preparation techniques, this knowledge can
-------
32
enter into risk management decisions. For example, under
the Great Lakes Uniform Health Advisory, agencies have
proposed basing contaminant exposure estimates on the
assumption that all or most locally-caught fish are skinless
fillets. Assessing behaviors of the target audiences allows
agencies to plan risk communication programs, and validate
certain assumptions of the risk management program.
- Locations fished. The places where anglers fish may have a
profound impact on their likely exposure to contaminants.
Some agency program objectives, particularly those of fishery
management agencies involved in health advisory programs,
reveal a concern about maintaining interest and participation
in the fisheries of the state, or maintaining use of fisheries
dispersed throughout numerous waters to avoid overuse of
particular locations. Understanding what locations anglers
frequent and why provides insights about how to persuade
individuals to shift to less contaminated waters.
- Species sought. Within a contaminated water body, several species
are often more contaminated than others. Understanding
which species anglers seek and why can provide information
about how to suggest shifting to less-contaminated species, if
necessary.
- Fish caught vs. fish kept. Catch and release fishing can help
achieve objectives of limited fish consumption while
maintaining an active fishery, in some cases. Understanding
the species caught, reasons for catching fish, and likelihood
of an angler releasing caught fish can help the health advisory
communicator decide if it may be worthwhile to promote
greater catch and release fishing in a particular area, and the
potential receptivity of the target audiences to such advice.
- Information channels used. Understanding how potential fish
consumers receive their information related to fish
consumption is critical to choosing dissemination
mechanisms. Information channels considered do not have to
be limited to those that are fishing-related (e.g., fishing
regulations guides, lake-specific brochures). Rather,
communicators should consider channels through which
potential fish consumers regularly receive any type of
information to determine if it is possible to include additional
information about health advisories within those materials.
For example, women of childbearing age may regularly
receive health-related information at public health clinics.
Thus, a potential channel, via health brochures in clinics, is
identified for this target audience. Low-income families may
regularly receive dietary or nutritional advice through in-
home visits from Cooperative Extension agents or social
workers, or printed materials through public assistance
programs. With some cooperation between these social
service agencies and the health advisory program, a
-------
33
potentially effective method for disseminating health advisory
information has been identified.
See Volume 3 in this series, Risk Management, for a discussion of behaviors that
may affect exposure to contaminants (e.g., fish preparation). These behaviors
should be considered in a risk communication program, either as baseline
behaviors, or as ultimate behaviors the agency hopes to foster in the target
population.
4.2.1.3 Expressed information needs
As discussed above, agencies may assess the initial knowledge and behaviors of
target audiences to identify information needs and provide a basis for later program
evaluation. In addition, agencies may also ask the audiences what information they
deem necessary in health advisories. Ideas expressed directly by individuals within
target audience groups are termed "expressed information needs." Target audiences
are allowed to express themselves regarding the types of information they wish to
have available in health advisories when they are asked for open-ended expression
of information needs, or asked to prioritize a set of potential health advisory
information developed by the agency. In several studies of anglers and potential
fish consumers (Connelly et al., 1992; Knuth and Connelly, 1993), expressed
information needs have included the following:
- Description of potential health problems from eating contaminated fish for
adults, children, and/or unborn children;
- Description of health benefits associated with fish consumption;
- Information on risk-reducing fish cleaning and cooking techniques;
- Information on which species to eat, not only which to avoid;
- Information on how to choose relatively safer sizes of fish to eat;
- Information on how to choose relatively safer fishing locations;
- Information on how health risks change as more or less fish is eaten;
- Description of chemical contaminants and sources to the water body;
- Description of risk assessment and risk management assumptions and
methods used in the health advisory program; and
- Comparison of fish consumption health risks with risks from eating other
types of protein (especially marine vs. freshwater fish), other dietary
risks, other consumption behaviors such as drinking and smoking,
and/or other activities such as driving a car.
4.2.2 Techniques for Determining Information Needs from Audiences
Selecting appropriate techniques for determining the information needs of the target
audiences will depend on several factors, including: (1) the health advisory
program budget and staff availability; (2) how quickly the information is needed;
(3) the novelty of the advisory program (new or continuing); and (4) the types of
-------
34
audiences an agency is targeting. Major categories of information-gathering
techniques include in-person interviews and discussions with individuals or groups,
mail and telephone surveys, and document review.
Costs associated with each of these techniques range from low ($100's) to very
substantial ($10,000's). Actual costs for a given technique will vary depending on
the number of participants and whether the work is contracted out to a commercial
firm or conducted in-agency. Cost considerations are listed below for each
technique. Specific dollar figures will vary according to variability in expenses
within agencies, effects of sample size, and variation in charges from commercial
firms.
Selecting participants from among the target audience population can be done in
many ways for each of these techniques. Individuals may be identified through a
registry if one exists (e.g., records of fishing license purchasers, low-income
nutrition assistance program participant lists), or through intercepts at central
locations, such as fishing access sites or at meetings of English-language tutorial
classes. Intercept contacts have the benefit of assuring identification of actual
anglers or fish consumers, depending on the intercept site.
Once identified through registries or intercept, participants can be recruited for
immediate or later participation in the following types of exercises. Detailed
descriptions of these information-gathering methods can be found in Dillman
(1978), Basch (1987), Desvouges and Smith (1988), Desvouges and Frey (1989),
USDHHS (1989), USEPA (1990), and USEPA (1992a).
4.2.2.1 Interviews and discussions
In-person contacts with members of the target audience can be one-on-one or in
groups. In-person contacts have a benefit of establishing a rapport between agency
personnel and members of the target audience, and allow for greater exchange of
ideas. In-person interviews may be conducted on-site, at fishing access locations,
or at an individuals' home or social setting. Individual interviews may last from 10
minutes to two hours or more.
Focus group discussions are designed to enable a group of people to focus on one to
several areas of discussion. Focus groups typically involve 8-10 participants, and
may last about two hours. Public meetings are small to large sessions at which
information is presented by the agency and individuals in attendance are asked to
respond. Each of these techniques require trained staff, as interviewers or group
facilitators and recorders.
Individual Interviews. Individual interviews for establishing information needs of
target audiences are characterized by the following strengths and weaknesses:
Strengths: Confidentiality of personal responses can be assured, unless
agency regulations preclude keeping data confidential; In-depth
probing by interviewer is possible to enhance quality of information;
Information is available relatively quickly; Can be used with
individuals with limited literacy skills.
Weaknesses: Cannot accomodate large numbers of participants at one time;
Time-consuming to complete many interviews; Costly in terms of
staff time.
-------
35
Costs: ($100 - $600 per participant). Higher costs for: (1) individual
staff time conducting interviews; (2) efforts to contact potential
participants if the audience is difficult to identify or reach; (3)
analysis time if much effort is needed to summarize data; (4) large
numbers of people interviewed; (5) monetary or other financial
incentives are required to entice participation; (6) travel associated
with interviews conducted in remote locations.
Lower costs if: (1) small numbers of participants are involved; (2)
participants are relatively easy to identify; (3) question development
can build on past efforts rather than beginning from scratch; and (4)
interviews will be conducted locally.
Special Case: Individual interviews may be conducted as part of a creel
survey effort conducted by a fisheiy management agency. Creel
surveys contact anglers on-site during the fishing activity. The main
objective of creel surveys is to gather catch information for fishery
management programs, but the personal contact may be used as an
opportunity to: (1) obtain the name, telephone number, and address
of the fishery user for later participation in a health advisory study
(e.g., mail or telephone survey); or (2) ask very brief questions
about how the existing health advisory information is reaching and
being received by the angler. Normally, the creel survey does not
allow for in-depth evaluation of the health advisory risk
communication program, but can be used to produce very specific
information such as the number (or %) of actual anglers who are
aware of the advisory recommendations.
Focus groups. Focus groups for establishing information needs of target audiences
are characterized as follows:
Strengths: Provides insights about target audience perceptions, beliefs,
language, and behavior; Group discussion provides interaction
among participants, often leading to greater understanding of
concepts; Ability to probe in-depth often produces insights into why
people think or act in certain ways; Information is available quickly.
Weaknessses: Success depends in part on ability of moderator to keep
group on task and to probe for more information when needed;
Confidentiality of responses cannot be assured; Can accomodate only
a few participants; Costs may include incentives for group
participation (e.g., a dinner prior to the discussion); Cannot make
population generalizations; Demands much participant time; May not
be appropriate for certain cultures in which peer pressure, deference
to others, or other factors may inhibit interactions among people.
Costs: ($100 - $500 per participant). Higher costs if: (1) many focus
group sessions are deemed necessary; (2) participants require some
financial incentive; and (3) interview site is remote and requires
substantial travel by staff.
Lower costs if: (1) one or a few focus group sessions are conducted;
(2) extensive facilitator training is not needed for an experienced
-------
36
facilitator; (3) focus group format builds on past efforts; and (4) data
analysis is typically a summary of the focus group sessions, perhaps
including a transcript of the meeting.
Public meetings.
Strengths: Yield information at low cost; Commonly used in state agencies,
so staff experienced in the technique are usually available;
Sometimes issues are raised within the crowd that would not be
raised in a smaller group when an individual might be asked for
greater elaboration; Can allow for agency-public interaction and
dialogue if designed appropriately.
Weaknesses: Meetings may be too local issue-oriented and not focus
broadly enough on health advisories; Audience responses may be
very emotional; A host of issues other than health advisory
communication programs may be surfaced, especially with an
inexperienced facilitator; Committing to statements in a public forum
sometimes entrenches the speaker even further in holding a particular
viewpoint, so public meetings may be undesirable in highly charged
atmospheres; and Rarely is there an opportunity to hold public
meeting speakers truly accountable for what they say at the meeting.
Costs: ($1,000 - $5,000 per meeting). Higher costs may be associated with
staff time involved in planning and facilitating the public meeting,
and possibly with travel to the site. Facilitator training is necessary,
as are good site arrangements and facilities, proper advertising of the
public meeting, and followup after the meeting with participants.
Public meetings are usually characterized by relatively low cost per
participant. Data summaries are generally low cost, and may include
staff debriefings immediately after the meeting, and analysis of
meeting transcripts.
4.2.2.2 Surveys
Mail and telephone surveys may be either random or targeted. Random sample
selection, assuming sufficient sample size, allows the agency to draw
generalizations about the initial characteristics of the entire target population prior
to developing a health advisory communication program. Such a strategy is very
useful if an intensive outcome-evaluation is planned after the communication
program is implemented. Population generalizations prior to program
implementation provide the baseline against which to evaluate population
characteristics after program implementation.
Targeted sample selection usually involves a smaller sample size than random
sample selection for the purposes of pre- and post- evaluation. Individuals may be
targeted for selection based on the desire to maximize variability among individuals
surveyed, thereby maximizing the potential for identifying a fun range of
information needs among the audience. Normally, the goal with targeted sample
selection is not to derive generalizations about the population, but rather to identify
the variety of information needs that may exist.
-------
37
Mail surveys. Mail surveys for establishing target audience information needs are
characterized by the following strengths and weaknesses:
Strengths: Allow for gathering information from people who may not be
accessible in person; Time involvement of participant is usually
limited to one-half to one hour; Provides confidentiality, unless
agency regulations preclude guaranteeing confidentiality; Allows
respondents to think about their response before it is finalized; Can
accomodate many participants.
Weaknesses: Involves costs of printing and mailing in addition to staff
time; Often time-consuming to allow for sufficient response time and
reminders; Does not provide for in-depth probing; Low response
rates are possible; Bias may exist between those who respond and
those who do not respond; Inappropriate for audiences with limited
literacy skills.
Costs: ($5,000 - $100,000 per study; $10 - $25 per participant for
typical sample sizes). Higher costs are associated with questionnaire
development if the effort does not build on past mail surveys, large
amounts of postage, staff effort in selecting the sample if it is not an
easily-identifiable group, and staff costs associated with
implementation (mailings) and data entry and analysis. Large sample
sizes increase only some implementation costs (e.g., not
questionnaire development).
Costs are lowered if the sample size is minimized (but large enough
to produce useful results), if the questionnaire repeats or builds on
earlier efforts, and if data analysis is straightforward.
Telephone surveys. Telephone surveys for establishing target audience
information needs are characterized as follows:
Strengths: Allows for contacting people who may not be available in
person; Allows for probing for more in-depth information; Assures
confidentiality of responses, unless precluded by agency regulation;
Time involvement of participant usually limited to one-half to one
hour.
Weaknesses: Usually little time for participant to reconsider responses;
Requires extensive staff time; Requires telephone numbers of
participants; Excludes people without telephones; Excludes those
who will not respond to unsolicited calls.
Costs: ($5,000 - $100,000 per study; $15 - $30 per participant for
typical sample sizes). Higher costs are associated with purchase or
rental of telephone equipment if needed, cost of telephone calls, staff
time associated with calling, questionnaire development if the survey
does not build on prior efforts, large sample sizes, very lengthy or
complicated questionnaires, and extensive data analysis and
interpretation.
-------
38
Lower costs are associated with shorter questionnaires, repeats or
modifications of earlier efforts, smaller sample sizes, and use of
experienced staff who require little new training.
4.2.2.3 Document review
Documents produced or used by target audiences offer insight about which issues
those audiences consider important relative to health advisories. Typically,
document review is used after a health advisory communication program has
already been established. Documents produced by non-agency sources in response
to fish contamination or health advisories indicate the magnitude of concern within
a community, how health advisory information is being received and interpreted,
and perceptions about the agencies involved in the health advisory program.
Documents useful for review include newspapers, particularly editorials, letters
received by the health advisory agency, and brochures or fact sheets produced by
interest or advocacy groups in response to an agency's advisory materials.
Qualitative, rather than quantitative, review of these documents is often sufficient to
identify the range of topics represented. Analysis of documents may include simply
generating a list of all topics/concerns mentioned. Topics on the list can then be
considered for inclusion in the health advisory communication program. The
frequency of certain concerns can be recorded to provide some indication of priority
or importance, at least among the audiences represented by the documents
reviewed.
Document review. Document review for establishing target audience information
needs is characterized as follows:
Strengths: Provides an accessible means of data about perceptions of health
advisories before a new round of the communication program is
developed; Relatively low-cost; Language used is that of the target
audience; All information is audience-generated, reflecting real
issues among the target audience; Can alert health advisory agency
about perception issues it will face when working with a target
audience.
Weaknesses: May not be representative of the beliefs and perceptions within
the entire population; Only the ends of the spectrum may be evident
(e.g., those most positive or most negative about health advisories);
No interaction between agency and audience; Information may not be
in a form that is useful to the agency.
Costs: ($100 - $4,000 per effort). Higher costs are associated with staff
time obtaining and analyzing documents, and purchasing computer
equipment used for analysis.
Costs are lowered if documents to be analyzed are readily available,
and if staff already have document analysis experience.
4.3 INFORMATION NEEDS: AGENCY OR EXPERT-GENERATED
In addition to information collected from target audiences prior to developing a
communication strategy, program experts are also a productive information source.
Agency staff, health experts, and other risk communication experts have a wealth of
-------
39
experience with health advisory or similar communication problems. They can
offer predictions about the potential responses of certain target audiences, and
suggest the information needs of those audiences based on previous program
implementation, or empirical or theoretical research. Experts, however, may not
understand the target audiences fully, and should not be relied on as the sole source
of audience information needs.
4.3.1 Relationship to Objectives
Agency staff should review the program objectives, particularly second-order
objectives, when generating a list of information needs to be addressed via health
advisory communication programs. The target audiences identified and the
outcomes sought will suggest what information needs are important to meet prior to
developing a communication strategy.
Agency staff can consider and record any insights they have about each target
audience named in the objectives. These insights may be hypotheses about how an
audience will respond to particular communication strategies, or observations about
audience responses to similar communication strategies in the past.
4.3.2 Techniques for Determining Audience Information Needs via Experts
Ideas about audience information needs may be solicited from individuals and
groups within the health advisory agency, or by working with experts in other
agencies or universities. Workgroups may be assigned to brainstorming or other
group discussions to identify the range of information they perceive is needed by
each target audience, and why.
Roundtable discussion of the reasons why information may be important to a given
audience helps clarify the quality of the expert's perception as well as begin the
process of identifying how that information might best be presented in the
communication program. Perceived information needs may also be solicited
individually or in writing, although these approaches lack the opportunity for the
communicator to probe in-depth with the participants.
An advantage of using experts to identify target audience information needs is their
accessibility, particularly if in-house experts with knowledge of the desired target
audiences are consulted. Use of experts may be less time-consuming than
consulting directly with members of target audiences, because they may be in-
house, and because usually no more than a few experts are involved. Using agency
staff, whether in-house or from a partner agency, establishes a sense of commitment
to the program within those who participate. This mutual commitment to the health
advisory program may be particularly important, since in many states more than
one agency is involved (e.g., health, environmental quality, fisheries).
Experts to involve in this process need not be limited to those with a particular
subject matter expertise, i.e., health advisories. Fishery experts may be able to
offer insights about the preferred fishing locations and species of certain target
angler audiences, and the likelihood of various responses to health advisory
messages. Social service experts may be able to suggest language and cultural
norms that should be considered for specific ethnic or income-limited audiences.
Local health care providers may have insights about local population health
characteristics, nutritional characteristics, and fish consumption patterns, as well as
information channels used by target audiences.
-------
40
The key to using experts to determine critical content and dissemination issues in
health advisory programs is to recognize potential limitations to the experience and
knowledge of the expert. Have they worked with each of your important target
audiences? How similar to health advisories have been the issues on which they
have worked? How recently have they had contact with the target audiences? How
have they and/or their programs been received by the target audiences in the past?
A potential limitation of using experts to generate information needs for the health
advisory program is the resulting lack of information collected directly from the
target audiences. Such information provides a baseline about the condition of the
target audience prior to implementation of the communication program, and cannot
be replicated through the intuition or experience of the expert. Caution should
always be used in the degree of reliance placed on expert-generated information.
Although experts may believe they understand and represent the information needs
of the target audiences, their perceptions may not reflect those audience needs
accurately (Velicer and Knuth 1994).
4.4 AUDIENCE CHARACTERIZATION IN AN ONGOING PROGRAM
The characteristics and information needs of target audiences change over time. As
target audiences participate in health advisory communication programs, their
information needs, attitudes, and behaviors also change. Periodic review of target
audiences and their information needs is required to keep health advisory
communication programs current and responsive.
Target audiences are not the only component of health advisory programs that may
change. The health advice may change because the assumptions in the risk
assessment and risk management processes have changed. Better contaminant
monitoring procedures may indicate greater or lesser contaminant levels in fish
tissue than originally measured. An agency developing a partnership with another
agency in the same or a neighboring state may lead to adoption of different
assumptions about risk acceptability, appropriate level of conservative risk
assessment assumptions, or other philosophical and procedural changes that result in
changed fish consumption advice.
When such changes occur, or are anticipated, a new assessment of the information
needs of the target audiences should be conducted. What kinds of questions will
they have in response to the new health advice? What issues of credibility will the
agency face as health advice is modified? Changed health advice may also target
new at-risk populations. These populations then become new target audiences
whose information needs communicators must strive to understand, as discussed
throughout Section 4.
4.5 SUMMARY CHECKLIST
1. Segment audiences based on behavioral, demographic, and cultural parameters,
and based on use of information channels.
2. Compare potential target audience list with audiences named in program
objectives.
-------
41
3. Identify types of information to be collected from target audiences;
a) initial knowledge and beliefs
b) initial behavior
c) expressed information needs
4. Choose and implement a technique for collecting information from target
audiences:
a) individual interviews
b) focus groups
c) public meetings
d) mail surveys
e) telephone surveys
f) document review
5. Identify types of information to be collected from agency staff or other health
advisory/risk communication experts.
6. Implement techniques for collecting information from experts.
7. Summarize and compare information needs identified by target audiences and
experts.
8. Periodically review and revise audience characterizations and assessments of
information needs.
-------
42
SECTIONS
COMMUNICATION STRATEGY: DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
The objectives of this section are to (1) describe various content, format, and
dissemination tools that can be considered when designing a communication
strategy; and (2) provide examples of tools that have been used in health advisory
programs.
After health advisory communication program objectives are articulated and target
audiences characterized, the specific methods for achieving the desired outcomes
must be identified. This stage of the communication process, strategy design,
includes identifying the content of advisory information necessary to achieve
program objectives, selecting appropriate dissemination mechanisms, and
constructing a timeline or flow chart for the program activities (see Appendix B for
an example communication strategy from the Michigan Department of Public
Health). Appropriateness of potential communication tools should always be
considered relative to communication program outcomes desired, and potential
effectiveness with each target audience.
The health advisory communicator should understand that even with a carefully-
designed communication strategy, risk communication is limited in what it can
accomplish. Risk communication can provide information to target audiences and
to health advisory program personnel, but it cannot guarantee that certain behaviors
or attitudes will be adopted by people at potential health risk due to fish
consumption habits.
5.1 TOOLS FOR THE COMMUNICATION STRATEGY
Health advisories are typically communicated via some form of written materials,
but may include oral and visual communication. Tools to consider in designing the
communication strategy include the format and tone of the advisory, the advisory
content, and advisory dissemination mechanisms.
5.1.1 Potential Advisory Content/Messages
The health advisory may include a variety of information in addition to the core fish
consumption advice. Including information beyond basic fish consumption advice
helps enhance the likelihood that the potential fish consumer will heed the
recommended fish consumption limits.
The content of a health advisory refers to the complete set of information within a
health advisory package. For example, a health advisory within a fishing
regulations guide may be simply a list of waterbodies, fish species, and
recommended consumption limits. Or, an advisory could include a list of
chemicals triggering each species' advisory for each waterbody, and a description
of the health effects associated with each chemical. An advisory may also include
advice about how to reduce exposure to contaminants by reducing the amount of
fish consumed and by cleaning and cooking the fish in a manner that reduces
chemical intake. Decisions about how much information to include beyond the core
fish consumption advice depend on several factors, including the identity and needs
of the targeted audiences and the dissemination mechanisms that can be used.
-------
43
The content of a health advisory may or may not be relevant to the target audiences.
The challenge for the risk communicator is to develop health advisory content so
the information is relevant to the variety of target audiences who will be reached,
and is characterized by message clarity, balance, and accuracy (USDHHS, 1993).
5.1.1.1 Core Consumption Recommendations
In its most basic form, a fish consumption health advisory includes a set of fish
consumption recommendations. These recommendations indicate the fish
consumption limits derived through the risk assessment and risk management
processes. A health advisory may be a one-sentence warning containing the basic
fish consumption advice (e.g., "Do not eat fish from Lake Ontario"), or an
elaborate matrix with varying fish consumption recommendations depending on the
body of water, the fish species, the fish size, or the person to be eating the fish.
See Volume 3 in this series, Risk Management, for a discussion of health advisory
and regulatory options for fish consumption programs.
The risk management approach chosen will determine what information is included
in the core consumption recommendations. Fish consumption recommendations
may include details such as (for examples, see Appendix B):
(1) Various frequencies of consumption. Consumption recommendations
may suggest various consumption frequencies for particular types of
fish, or types of target audiences. Differential severity of response
to contaminant exposure may warrant different consumption
frequency advice for various target audiences. Consumption
frequencies in health advisory recommendations include
(a) unlimited consumption (no restrictions);
(b) consumption limited to a certain number of meals over a
specified time period (e.g., one meal per week, one meal per
month, 10 meals over a two-week vacation period each year);
or
(c) no consumption.
(2) Consumption frequencies that vary for different audiences. Based
on risk management goals, health advisory recommendations may be
constructed to provide more-restrictive health advice to those
audiences at the most risk of adverse effects from contaminants. In
such cases, fish consumption recommendations may differ for groups
of people even though they are eating the same types of fish from the
same bodies of water. The audiences distinguished most frequently
with separate (more restrictive) fish consumption advice include
women of childbearing age and children (e.g., under the age of 15)
(see Examples 5.1 and 5.2).
-------
44
EXAMPLE 5.1 Sample wording for special audiences (from New York State Health
Advisory, 1994, see Appendix B).
(from statewide advisory)'. "Health advice is also given for infants, children
under the age of fifteen, and women of childbearing age. The DOH
recommends that they not eat any fish species from the specific waterbodies
listed in the advisory. The reason for this specific advice is that chemicals may
have a greater impact on developing organs in young children or in the fetus.
They also build up in women's bodies and are often passed on in mother's milk.
Waters which have specific advisories have at least one species of fish with an
elevated contaminant level, which means that a contamination source is in or
near the water."
(from a special Marine Waters flyer)'. "Women of childbearing age and
children under the age of 15 should eat NO striped bass taken from Long
Island Sound west of Wading River. Other individuals should eat no more
than one meal per month of these striped bass."
EXAMPLE 5.2 Sample wording for special audiences, advising how to space meals
out over time (from Anderson et al., 1993, see Appendix B).
"People who regularly eat sport fish, women of childbearing age, and children,
are particularly susceptible to contaminants that build up over time. If you fall
into one of these categories, you should be especially careful to space fish meals
out according to the advisory table that follows. Your body can get rid of some
contaminants, such as mercury, over time. Spacing the meals out helps prevent
the contaminants from building up to harmful levels in the body. For example,
if the fish you eat is in the "One Meal A Month Group", wait a month before
eating another meal of fish from any restricted category.
Women beyond their childbearing years and men face fewer health risks from
contaminants such as mercury. However, if you are in this group, you should
also follow the advisory to reduce your total exposure to contaminants. For
these groups, it is the total number of meals that you eat during the year that
becomes important and many of those meals can be eaten during a few months of
the year. If most of the fish you eat are from the "One Meal A Week" category,
you should not exceed 52 meals per year, likewise, if most of the fish you eat
are in the "One Meal A Month" category, you should not exceed 12 meals per
year. Remember, eating one meal of fish from the "One Meal A Month" group
is comparable to eating four fish meals from the "One Meal A Week Group"."
(3) Consumption frequencies that vary for water bodies. Risk
assessment information may be available for specific waterbodies
within a state. Agencies may recommend fish consumption limits
that vary based on the types and extent of chemical contamination
within each waterbody, rather than blanket fish consumption advice
for a particular fish species throughout the state. In some cases, it
may be impossible to monitor all or most waterbodies for
contaminants. One state, New York, responds by issuing a general
-------
45
statewide advisory in addition to its waterbody-specific fish
consumption recommendations (Example 5.3).
EXAMPLE 5.3 New York's general statewide advisory ( from NY Dept. of Health,
1994 Health Advisory, see Appendix B).
"The general health advisory for sport fish is that you eat no more than one meal
(one half-pound) per week of fish taken from the state's freshwaters, the Hudson
River estuary, or the New York City Harbor area. This general advisory is to
protect against eating large amounts of fish that haven't been tested or contain
unidentified contaminants. The general advisory does not apply to fish taken
from marine waters. Ocean fish, although less tested, are generally less
contaminated than freshwater fish. In addition, fish that live further out from
shore may be less contaminated than those that live close to the shore."
(4) Consumption frequencies that vary by fish species and size.
Depending on the extent of fish monitoring information available in
the risk assessment process, agencies may issue health advisories
with consumption advice that differs by fish species and size of fish.
Instead of issuing an advisory such as "Do not eat any fish from
Smith Lake", advisories may restrict consumption of only selected
species, or selected sizes within any species (e.g., "Do not eat
rainbow trout greater than 25" total length").
The rationale for issuing fish consumption recommendations specific
to fish species and sizes is based on the differential rates of
contaminant accumulation and availability to people through
consumption. In general, fish with fattier tissues accumulate more
contaminants than leaner fish, larger (older) fish contain more
contaminants than smaller (younger) fish, and predatory fish
accumulate more contaminants than prey species (See Volume 3,
Risk Management, for more detailed discussion).
Fish consumption advice based on eating smaller fish can be tied into
fishery management goals of catch and release fishing (see Example
5.4).
-------
46
EXAMPLE 5.4 Description of catch and release Fishing (based on Oregon Health
Division advisory news release, 1994).
Eating smaller fish, or no fish from certain waters, helps promote catch-and-
release fishing opportunities in Oregon's waters. A catch-and-release approach
allows fishermen to still enjoy fishing as a high-quality recreational experience,
according to ODFW officials.
Some tips on releasing fish include:
- retrieve the catch quickly and release it immediately;
- keep the fish in water as much as possible;
- remove the hook or lure carefully;
- leave deeply swallowed bait hooks in the fish by cutting off the line;
- avoid squeezing the fish and if the fish does not swim away, help revive the
fish.
5.1.1.2 Chemicals of concern and their effects
The reasons for recommended restrictions on fish consumption may not be apparent
to the potential fish consumer without some understanding of the contaminants
causing the need for restrictions. An individual's response to restrictive fish
consumption recommendations may be influenced by the potential health risks
involved. For example, women of childbearing age may be willing to eat
contaminated fish and assume a health risk of developing cancer 30 years hence;
they may not be willing to assume a health risk of bearing developmentally-delayed
children.
Health advisory information about fish contaminants may include (for examples, see
Appendix B, and Example 5.5):
(1) the names of chemicals detected in fish tissue;
(2) the types of health problems associated with the contaminant (e.g., acute
vs. chronic, cancer, birth defects, development delays);
(3) differential effects for certain human populations (e.g., why effects are
different for adults vs. children); and
(4) sources of these contaminants in the environment.
-------
47
EXAMPLE 5.5 Description of contaminants in fish and their effects (from
Minnesota Fish Facts, 1994, see Appendix B).
"What contaminants are found in Minnesota fish?
Fish in Minnesota lakes and rivers accumulate mercury. Mercury recycles
between land, water, and air and enters plant and animal tissue. Although
mercury is a naturally occurring metal, most of the mercury which enters
Minnesota waters comes from household and industrial wastes during
incineration, from latex paints, and from burning coal and other fossil fuels.
Mercury levels are slowly increasing in lakes in the northern part of the state.
Fish in some lakes and nearly half of the rivers which have been sampled for the
advisory program contain PCBs. These synthetic oils had many uses and are
found in electrical transformers, cutting oils, and carbonless paper. Although
they were banned in 1976, they do not decompose easily and remain in the water
and lake sediments for years. PCB levels in Minnesota's waters are slowly
decreasing.
What are the health risks of eating contaminated fish?
PCBs, dioxin, and methylmercury build up in your body over time. It may take
months or years of regularly eating contaminated fish to accumulate levels which
are a health concern. As you follow the fish advisory, the amount of
methylmercury you take into your body is safely eliminated between meals.
Larger amounts may harm the nervous system. The fetus is especially sensitive
to mercury poisoning. Delays in infant development have occurred following
high maternal exposures to methylmercury. The first symptoms of adult
poisoning include incoordination and a burning or tingling sensation in the
fingers and toes. As mercury levels increase, your ability to walk, talk, see, and
hear may all be affected in subtle ways. Fish consumption advice offered by the
Minnesota Department of Health is intended to keep the mercury in your body
below levels that damage the nervous system.
Exposure to PCBs is linked to infant development problems in children whose
mothers were exposed to PCBs before becoming pregnant. Meal advice for
PCB-contaminated fish is intended to protect children from developmental
problems. PCBs also cause changes in human blood, liver, and immune
function of adults. In addition, PCBs cause cancer in laboratory animals and
may cause cancer in humans."
See Volume 2 in this series, Risk Assessment, for specific information about the
characteristics of various fish contaminants, including toxicity data.
5.1.1.3 Identification of "safer" fish species, sizes, and fishing locations
Fishing and eating fish may be important elements of an individual's lifestyle,
either by choice or necessity. Health advisories that simply warn "Do not eat fish
from ..." a given waterbody provide few alternatives to the angler and potential fish
consumer. Rather, health advisories that contain information directing potential
fish consumers to alternative sources of fishing or fish respond to an individual's
need or desire for safer opportunities.
-------
48
This information may be stated explicitly (e.g., "Brown Lake tested free of
contaminants in 1993 and poses the least risks associated with fish consumption."),
or may be in the form of general guidance. By omission, core consumption advice
that lists only those species known to be contaminated implies that other species
within those waters are safe for unlimited consumption. Similarly, advisories that
list confirmed contaminated waters imply that unlisted waters are not contaminated.
New York includes the following advice on how to make choices to reduce
exposure to contaminants from fish (see Appendix B):
"Choose uncontaminated species from waterbodies which are not listed in
the advisories; Choose smaller fish, consistent with fishery regulations,
within a species since they may have lower contaminant levels. Older
(larger) fish within a species may be more contaminated because they have
had more time to accumulate contaminants in their bodies."
See Volumes 2, Risk Assessment, and 3, Risk Management in this series for a
discussion of methods and impacts associated with health advisory programs. Some
target audiences may benefit from being directed to safer, or less risky, sources of
fish rather than only being directed away from sources high in contaminants. See
Example 5.6 for a sample explaining a variety of ways to reduce health risks.
EXAMPLE 5.6 List of risk-reducing strategies in addition to abiding by fish
consumption meal limits (from 1994 Minnesota Fishing Regulations).
"Reducing Your Risk
* Eat fish species that are less contaminated. PCBs build up most in fatty fish
such as carp, catfish, and lake trout. Mercury levels are highest in large
predatory fish such as walleye and northern pike. Species such as perch,
sunfish, and crappie have the least amount of contaminants.
* Keep smaller fish for eating. Younger fish have had less time to accumulate
contaminants.
* Reduce meal size and frequency. Anyone who eats freshwater fish more than
once per week, especially those species listed above, could be at some risk.
* Remove PCBs by properly cleaning, trimming, and cooking fish. This
chemical concentrates in the fat of fish. By removing the fat when you clean and
cook fish, you can reduce your exposure to PCBs by 20 percent or more.
Remove all fat from turtle meat."
5.1.1.4 Adverse health effects from eating fish
Similar to including information about contaminants and their health effects, health
advisories may include information specifically about the adverse health effects
from eating contaminated fish. Types of health effects information that could be
included in fish consumption health advisories are:
(1) that health effects associated with contaminated fish consumption may
develop only after decades of exposure;
-------
49
(2) an explanation of acute vs. chronic exposure and health effects;
(3) cancer-causing or cancer-promoting effects (see Example 5.7);
(4) the potential for reproductive and developmental health impacts either in
the fish consumer or in a developing fetus (Example 5.8); and
(5) comparison of the various types of potential health effects.
EXAMPLE 5.7 How do I answer the question, "Is it safe to eat any fish that are
likely to have carcinogenic chemicals in them?" (based on Chun and Den
1992).
Your question on carcinogens is an excellent one. USEPA has identified some
chemicals as known, probable, or possible human carcinogens based primarily
on human data, and on animal studies. If we believe a chemical is a carcinogen,
we assume that all levels of exposure will have some level of cancer risk. If in
asking your question you want to know if there are levels of exposure that are
free from risk, the answer is no. If, on the other hand, you are asking about
whether certain levels of chemical exposure due to eating fish are too small to be
of a health concern, the answer is yes. Our goal is to reduce the level of
exposure to where it will be safe to eat the fish you catch here. We do that
through programs designed to prevent or clean up polluted waters, and by
providing advice about how to limit your fish consumption from certain waters
in the state.
EXAMPLE 5.8 Explanation of noncarcinogenic health impacts (from Draft
Guidelines for Eating Fish from Georgia Waters, 1994, see Appendix B).
"What are the health risks of eating contaminated fish?
PCBs can cause infant development problems in children whose mothers were
exposed to PCBs before becoming pregnant. This consumption advice is
intended to protect children from developmental problems. PCBs can also cause
changes in human blood, liver, and immune functions of adults. Some forms of
PCBs also cause cancer in laboratory animals and may cause cancer in humans,
but these guidelines are designed to prevent this from happening."
See Volumes 2 and 3 in this series, Risk Assessment and Risk Management, for
discussion of risk characterization and specific health effects associated with fish
contaminants.
5.1.1.5 Health benefits of eating fish
Agencies may decide to include information about the health benefits of eating fish
(Example 5.9) for several reasons. First, the absence of such information may
present an unnecessarily negative image of a natural resource with the potential of
providing a nutritious food source, especially to families in need, or the potential
for providing an economically-important recreational fishery.
-------
50
Second, health benefits information may be useful to certain types of people who
seek to balance the risks and benefits to which they are exposed. For example,
people prone to heart disease may benefit from understanding the health benefits of
fish consumption rather than being scared away from all or most fish consumption
if only the consumption restrictions are presented.
Third, general dietary advice may be useful for public health reasons to promote
shifts from reliance on high-fat protein sources to low-fat protein sources. Fourth,
including fish consumption health benefits information encourages a more realistic
view of risks within our society. That is, the health advisory becomes a vehicle for
educating society about the complexity of judging what is "safe" vs. "unsafe",
emphasizing that the judgment of risk is not clearcut.
EXAMPLE 5.9 Explaining health benefits of fish consumption (from NY Dept. of
Health, 1994 Health advisory, see Appendix B).
"Health Benefits
When properly prepared, fish provide a diet high in protein and low in saturated
fats. Almost any land of fish may have real health benefits when it replaces a
high-fat source of protein in the diet. You can get the health benefits of fish and
reduce unwanted contaminants by following this advisory."
See Volume 3 in this series, Risk Management, for a discussion of nutrition and
health benefits associated with fish consumption.
5.1.1.6 Comparison of health benefits and adverse health risks: tailoring the
message to an individual's personal circumstances
As noted above, agencies may seek to help potential fish consumers understand that
fish consumption provides health benefits as well as potential risks. Agencies may
also wish to explicitly help the reader compare the importance of those benefits and
risks. For such comparisons to be meaningful and ultimately, useful, to the reader,
they should address personal circumstances as much as possible.
The relative importance of the health benefits and health risks associated with fish
consumption will differ depending on an individual's circumstances. These
differences should be made clear, so an individual will understand the potential
health benefits and risks involved for him or her (Example 5.10).
EXAMPLE 5.10 Comparing health risks and benefits.
You may be concerned about comparing the risks and benefits of eating fish.
Consider your own lifestyle and health background. If you have high
cholesterol, you may be wise to eat fish as often as once a week. For you, the
benefits of eating fish may be more important than the cancer or other risks. But
if you are also feeding your children fish, you might be concerned about the
developmental risks they may face from exposure to contaminants. For your
children, you can choose fish low in contaminants, and choose fish from a
variety of sources.
-------
51
Some people may desire that the agency compares health risks and benefits, seeking
only an answer to the question: Should I eat this fish?. Advisory program staff can
acknowledge the concern for safety, explain the health advisory development
process briefly, and reiterate the advisory recommendations for the specific
location. Answering such a question is a good opportunity to begin to explain some
of the factors an individual may consider when deciding to eat a fish or not,
provided the explanation is brief (see Example 5.11).
EXAMPLE 5.11 How do I answer the question, "Is it safe for me to eat this fish?"
(based on Chun and Den 1992).
Your concern for safety is our concern also. Any cancer-causing chemical found
in fish is potentially dangerous. Some chemicals may cause other problems
instead of cancer. Based on our samples of fish harvested here, we feel it is
safest if you limit your consumption of fish caught here to 6 meals within a
year's time. I can't tell you the amount of contaminants in this particular fish
without testing it in the lab. Limiting your diet of fish caught from here will
limit your potential exposure to contaminants.
See Volume 3 in this series, Risk Management, for a discussion of comparisons of
health risks and health benefits associated with fish consumption.
5.1.1.7 Comparison of contaminant management programs for sport- vs.
commercially-caught fish
Audiences may be curious about the relative risks of contaminants in store-bought
fish vs. the fish they catch themselves. It may be difficult to convey in a risk
communication program the differences between regulatory (i.e., commercial fish
catch inspection) vs. voluntary (i.e., health advisory) approaches to protecting
human health. Communication progams may explain the different assumptions
involved in commercial inspection vs. sport-fish health advisory programs, and the
potential differences that may result (Example 5.12 and 5.13).
EXAMPLE 5.12 Comparing fish contaminant programs for sport- vs.
commercially-caught fish (from "Fish Facts: Eating Minnesota Fish",
Minnesota Department of Health, 1994, see Appendix B).
"What about commercially available fish?
Fish from oceans, estuaries, and inland waters may contain small amounts of
mercury and PCBs as well as other contaminants. The amounts of contaminants
that may be present in commercially available fish can add to what you are
already taking in from sport fish. Fish available in food stores and restaurants
are subject to inspection and regulation. Nationwide, fish with levels of
contaminants above Food and Drug Administration levels of concern are not
allowed on the market. However, it is possible that commercially available fish
will meet federal standards for food safety, yet not meet Minnesota Department
of Health guidelines for fish that can be eaten in unlimited quantities. The
Minnesota Department of Health and Minnesota Department of Agriculture
support increased analysis of contaminants from all sources."
-------
52
EXAMPLE 5.13 Comparing fish contaminant programs for sport- vs. store-bought
fish (from Draft "An Expectant Mother's Guide to Eating Minnesota Fish",
Minnesota Department of Health, 1994).
"What About Store-Bought Fish?
The fish or shellfish you buy from your grocery store or fish market can also
contain contaminants. Although there are laws to limit these contaminants, not
all commercial fish are tested.
Pregnant or nursing women should not eat swordfish or shark. Canned tuna
have mercury levels comparable to many Minnesota-caught fish. It is safe for a
pregnant woman to eat up to 7 ounces of tuna each week - if it is the only source
of mercury-contaminated fish, including sport-caught fish, eaten that week.
Most commercial ocean fish, such as shellfish, flounder, pollack, and cod, are
low in PCBs. A pregnant or nursing woman can safely eat these once a week.
Remember to consider ALL sources of fish you eat when making your choices."
5.1.1.8 Comparison of health risks from fish consumption with other risks
Risks associated with fish consumption may be compared with other types of risks
such as:
- voluntary risks such as boating, smoking, drinking;
- involuntary risks such as being struck by lightning;
- dietary risks such as eating red meat or peanut butter as protein sources;
and
- non-dietary risks.
Very few empirical data exist to support or discourage the use of risk comparisons
in health advisories. Few studies have examined the actual effects of presenting
comparative risk information to audiences on any risk topic. Communicators
considering the use of comparative risks such as those listed above should pretest
the draft materials to determine likely response to the information among target
audiences.
Empirical data based on anglers' desired information provide insights about
expressed information needs of these audiences. Anglers have expressed a desire
for information comparing risks of fish consumption with (in order of priority) (a)
risks from eating other types of protein; (b) other health risks such as smoking and
drinking; and (c) risks from other activities such as driving a car or boating
(Connelly et al. 1992; Connelly and Knuth 1993). General risk statements may be
helpful for placing the level of risk in some context (Example 5.14).
Including information about other risks may be especially appropriate for some
audiences. For example, audiences for whom fish is a major protein source may
benefit from information on relative risks associated with alternative protein
-------
53
sources. If these audiences reduce fish consumption, that protein presumably must
be provided through another source. Volume 3, Risk Management, includes
explanations of potential risk comparisons to consider in health advisory programs.
EXAMPLE 5.14 Comparison of risks from eating fish with general cancer risks
(from Minnesota Fish Facts, 1994, see Appendix B).
"Currently, cancer will affect about one in every two people in Minnesota,
primarily due to smoking, diet, and hereditary risk factors. If you follow the
advisory over your lifetime, the PCBs or dioxin in the fish you eat may not
increase your cancer risk at all. At worst, using Environmental Protection
Agency methods to calculate risk from a lifetime of eating contaminated fish, it
is estimated that approximately one additional cancer case may develop in one of
2,500 to 10,000 people eating contaminated fish according to the advisory.
Eating fewer meals of contaminated fish will further decrease your cancer risk."
5.1.1.9 Risk-reducing fish cleaning and cooking methods
Exposure to some contaminants may be reduced through use of specific fish
cleaning methods (such as removing the skin, filleting the fish, removing dorsal and
ventral fat, and removing viscera) and cooking techniques (e.g., methods such as
baking or broiling that allow fats to drain away from the fish flesh). Volume 3 in
this series (Risk Management) contains details about the types of contaminants most
likely to be reduced through these means.
See Example 5.15 and Appendix B for examples of fish-cleaning diagrams. See
Example 5.16 for a sample of text explaining fish preparation techniques.
EXAMPLE 5.15 Fish cleaning diagram (from Anderson et al. 1993, see Appendix B).
Remove all skin
Cut away a V-shaped wedge
to remove the dark £ttty tissue
along the entire length of the fillet
Cut away all fat
along the back
Slice off the belly ftt
-------
54
Including information about risk-reducing fish preparation techniques may be
important for several reasons. First, these techniques allow those who are not
willing or able to follow the fish consumption restrictions to reduce their risks by
reducing exposure to some contaminants even though they may be eating fish in
excess of recommended limits.
Second, these techniques may offer a further margin of safety for those fish
consumers who are keeping their consumption within recommended limits.
Third, health advisory recommendations may be derived from risk assessment data
based on contaminant levels in skin-on fish fillets, skin-off fish fillets, or in whole
fish. These risk assessment/risk management assumptions should be communicated
to fish consumers. People who eat fish prepared in a manner different than that
assumed in risk assessment/risk management may be exposing themselves
unintentionally to a greater health risk due to lack of knowledge of the assumptions
on which health protection programs are based. For example, if risk assessment
assumptions include exposure data based on contaminant levels in skin-off fillets, an
individual who regularly eats skin-on fillets will be at a greater contaminant
exposure than assumed in the risk assessment process.
EXAMPLE 5.16 Description of how to prepare fish and reduce contaminants (from
1993 Michigan Fishing Guide).
"Remove fats as you prepare the fish for the table.
You can reduce the amount of fat and certain contaminants, such as pesticides
and PCBs, in fish you eat by:
Trimming fatty areas (see figure). The belly, the top of the back, and the
lateral line are often fatty.
Puncturing or removing skin before cooking. This allows fats to drain off and
helps remove or reduce the thin layer of fat located just beneath the skin.
Cooking so fats drain away. Bake, broil, or grill on a rack, or poach and
discard the liquid. Avoid pan frying in butter or animal fat or making fish soups
or chowders. These methods hold fat-containing juices.
Deep-frying trimmed fillets in vegetable oil. After frying, drain the oil from
the fillets and throw away any liquid you used to cook the fish, including the
frying oil.
Note: There are no known methods to remove mercury from fish."
Fourth, fish cleaning and cooking techniques reduce contaminant exposure only for
some types of contaminants (e.g., organic compounds) (See Volumes 2 and 3).
Fish consumers who assume trimming the fat from fish will reduce all contaminants
(e.g., heavy metals) may be unwittingly exposing themselves to greater levels of
contaminants than intended. In situations such as these, the fish consumer must be
informed about (a) fish preparation techniques; (b) the contaminants of concern in
specific locations; and (c) the effectiveness of specific techniques in reducing the
exposure for the specific chemicals of concern.
-------
55
5.1.1.10 Risk assessment and risk management assumptions
Health advisory information may include explanations of the assumptions
underlying risk assessment processes and risk management decisions. Risk
assessment assumptions include such chemical characteristics as environmental
persistence and bioaccumulation, and human characteristics such as body weight
and meal size (see Volume 2 in this series). Risk management includes such
assumptions as selected acceptable levels of risk, assumed fish preparation
techniques, severity of likely economic and societal impacts, and decisions about
how conservative (protective) health advisory recommendations should be (see
Volume 3 in this series for a general discussion; Volumes 1 and 2 provide technical
data).
Communicating assumptions and uncertainty is an important component of health
advisory risk communication. Not doing so may produce the false impression that
a certain set of health advice is the only existing "truth." These impressions may
lead to a loss of credibility when fish consumption recommendations or other health
advice change in the future in response to different assumptions or changing
environmental conditions.
Some of these assumptions may be critical for the potential fish consumer to know,
others may be important only for the fish consumer who seeks to be informed about
as many aspects of health advisories as possible. Assumptions critical for every fish
consumer should be included in widely-disseminated health advisory materials.
Assumptions important only to those seeking specific details about health advisory
programs may be available in brochure or list form upon request to the agency.
Risk management assumptions that presume certain personal behavior (e.g., meal
size, eating only fish fillets) must be explained in health advisories. In the absence
of this information, the individual may not behave in the ways assumed, and thus
be exposed to higher risks than desired. Even with the explanation of such
assumptions, individuals may not behave in the ways assumed, but in these cases
the lack of the desired behavior may be due to personal choice rather than being
uninformed about the "expected" behavior.
Risk assessment and risk management programs, and their assumptions, are not
static. Assumptions change, changing health advice and fish consumption
recommendations. New scientific information or understandings may result in
modified health advisory recommendations. Putting the changes in perspective for
audiences who are aware of past and current advisories is critical to maintaining
confidence and trust in the agency.
Uncertainty in science, and thus, uncertainty in health advice, are realities (see
Section 7.2, this volume). Society, however, has been attuned to treating scientists
as omniscient experts. Credibility is often destroyed when scientific conclusions or
health advice change, especially if changes are frequent. Jim Colquhoun (NY
Department of Environmental Conservation) suggests health advisory staff should
acknowledge the high probability that we will learn more about the effects of
contaminants over time.
The lack of certainty about the effects of contaminants justifies the use of safety
factors in risk assessment and risk management (see Volumes 2 and 3 in this
series). Some or all target audiences may benefit from knowing that such safety
-------
56
factors are an element of health advisory program assumptions. Future scientific
studies may show that some contaminant characteristics once feared may not be so
dangerous after all, or conversely, that unforeseen dangers are associated with some
contaminants. Health advisory information may include explanations that the
current fish consumption advice is the best available to help protect human health,
based on currently available data.
5.1.1.11 Countering personal anecdotes.
An obstacle to effective risk communication is the "power of the personal anecdote"
(Jim Colquhoun, NY Departmet of Environmental Conservation, personal
communication). Health advisory program staff may hear comments such as, "I
have been eating these fish for 30 years, and I'm still here." Jim Colquhoun
suggests the following explanation:
People need to hear that just as there is a wide variety of body forms, innate
abilities, and facial features among people, there is a wide range of
sensitivity to toxic materials. One effective way to describe this to the
public is to first acknowledge their position (e.g., "You raise a good
point."), then relate a common observation of a bioassay experiment such as
the following. When several animals are exposed to the same dose of an
experimental toxicant, the most sensitive among them will be affected more
quickly and severely than the rest. Similarly, some may hang on long after
the rest have succumbed. When we rely on anecdotes, we are weighing the
outliers about the same as the majority which fall somewhere in between.
A similar, but opposite anecdote might indicate an overly reactionary response to
health advisories, e.g., "My uncle ate Lake Ontario salmon regularly for a few
years and died of cancer." Communicating that such cause-and-effect conclusions
are not certain is difficult, especially if health advisory and other communication
programs give the impression that our understanding of contaminants is complete.
Communicators may acknowledge the potential link between contaminants in fish
and certain health effects such as cancer, but also stress that it is exceedingly
difficult to attribute a specific cause (i.e., fish consumption) to any individual case
of a disease being contracted.
5.1.2 Advisory Format and Tone
Only one major research study (Connelly and Knuth 1993) has performed an in-
depth examination of peoples' preferences for different styles of health advisory
information presentation. Variables studied included (1) peoples' preferences for
text, tables, and graphics or diagrams within health advisory materials; (2) reactions
to a commanding, authoritative tone vs. a cajoling, appealing tone; (3) desire for
quantitative vs. qualitative risk-related information; and (4) appropriate reading
levels for printed health advisory materials. That study provides the basis for the
following discussion.
5.1.2.1 Text vs. tables vs. graphics
For most fish consumers, a combination of text, tables, and diagrams (rather than
only one of these forms) will likely be most effective. The use of diagrams is
particularly important when agencies try to explain complicated information that
can be expressed visually.
-------
57
Instructions about proper fish cleaning techniques is the type of information most
often presented graphically within advisories (Example 5.15). Maps showing
locations of waters subject to advisories and those not subject to advisories may also
be appropriate (Example 5.17), particularly if an agency's goals include informing
anglers of alternative, safer locations at which to fish. In most cases, diagrams will
be most successful when accompanied by explanatory text. The text is necessary to
add context to the diagram, and to provide multiple learning methods for the reader
(for examples, see Appendix B).
EXAMPLE 5.17 Health advisory location map (from New York State Health
Advisory, 1994, see Appendix B).
Waters with Restrictive
Fish Consumption
Advisories
1994
-fl 37
27
23^./
2*
•29
35
26
341
36 .
J 2
14
20
32!
-33
137
191
j-
IOC
Y
40/
11
1
2
Niagara River
Gill Creek
22
23
Long Pond ^
Halfmoon Lake
/O S4 - "
3
Cayuga Creek
24
Francis Lake
4
Eighteen Mile Creek
25
Moshter Resetvior
5
Barge Canal
26
Sunday Lake
6
Delaware Park Lake
27
SL Lawrence River
48 b 50
7
Buffalo River and Harbor
28
Stillwater Reservoir
8
Lake Ontario
29
Meacham Lake
9
Irondequoit Bay
30
Big Moose Lake
10
Canadic© Late
31
Massena Power Canal
43
Saw Mill River
11
Koppers Pond
32
Fourth Lake
44
Hariem River
12
Canandaigua Lake
33
Ferris Lake
45
Sheldrake River
13
Threemile Creek
34
Round Pond
46
East River
14
Oswego River
35
Lake Cham plain
47
Whitney Park Pond
15
Mohawk River
36
Schroon Lake
48
Hall's Pond
16
Keuka Lake
37
Grasse River
49
Smith Pond (Roosevelt Park)
17
Salmon River
38
Hoosic River
50
Loft's Pond
18
Indian Lake
39
Nassau Lake
51
Upper Massapequa Reservoir
19
Skaneateles Creek
40
Valatie Kill
52
Belmont Lake
20
Onondaga Lake
41
Kinderhook Lake
53
St. James Pond
21
Cany Falls Reservoir
42
Hudson River
54
Spn'ng Pond
-------
58
In many cases, the core consumption recommendations of a health advisory will be
most clearly presented in tabular form (Example 5.18). Such tables can include a
variety of information such as location, species, size of fish, recommended fish
consumption limits, and chemicals of concern. Tables containing the basic fish
consumption recommendations allow the reader to scan the information quickly to
find the waterbody or species-specific advice needed for any particular fishing trip.
Text surrounding the tables provide the explanation and elaboration that may be
needed to convince the reader to abide by the health advisory recommendations (for
examples, see Appendix B).
EXAMPLE 5.18 Health advisory table listing consumption advice (from Anderson et
al. 1993; see also Appendix B).
Meal Advice for Eating Sport Fish from Lake Michigan
| Fish
No
Restriction
One Meal a
Week (52
meals/year)
One Meal a
Month (12
meals/year)
One Meal
eveiy 2
Months (6
meals/year)
Do NOT Eat
| Cup
All Sizes
Catfish
All Sizes
Chinook
Salmon
<26"
>26"
Coho Salmon
< 17"
17-28"
>28"
Brown Trout
< 18"
18-27"
>27"
Lake Trout
<21"
21-26"
>26"
Walleye
< 17"
17 - 26"
>26"
Whitefish
<23"
>23"
Yellow Perch
< 9"
>9"
Brook Trout2
All Sizes
Pink Salmon2
All Sizes
Rainbow
Trout1
<22"
>22"
Smelt
All Sizes
-------
59
5.1.2.2 Commanding vs. cajoling tone
Unlike regulatory programs, health advisory programs rely on voluntary
compliance by the target audiences to achieve program objectives such as human
health protection. The tone of information communicated in health advisories may
influence the degree to which an individual feels motivated to comply with the fish
consumption advice.
When presented with the same basic message (i.e., anglers should limit their fish
consumption) in two different styles, anglers studied clearly preferred a cajoling,
conversational, explanatory tone rather than a commanding, directive, authoritative
tone (Example 5.19). The success of health advisory programs depends in part on
the confidence fish consumers place in the agency, but also on the rapport
established between agency and potential fish consumer. Cajoling messages have
the potential to instill a sense of partnership and concern about the individual or
household; commanding messages may instill negative feelings about impositions of
government agencies into a personal lifestyle activity such as fishing and eating
self-caught fish.
EXAMPLE 5.19 Commanding vs. a cooling tone (from Connelly and Knuth 1993).
Commanding Tone:
Limit your fish consumption. You should limit the amount of Great Lakes fish you eat.
If you do eat contaminated fish, you should space your meals out over time rather than
eating several meals over a short time period.
Cajoling Tone:
How much fish should you eat? Some Great Lakes fish should be eaten in moderation.
Exactly how much fish you should eat depends on how often you eat fish and the level
of fish contamination. A person who only eats fish during a one-week vacation has
little to worry about compared to the person who eats fish every week during the
summer. We eliminate contaminants from our bodies, and we do it more efficiently
than fish do. You can help that process by simply spacing meals of more contaminated
fish out over time.
5.1.2.3 Quantitative vs. qualitative
The use of quantitative vs. qualitative information, as with each of the
communication tools available, depends on the information needs and abilities of
the target audiences. Fish consumer preferences for quantitative vs. qualitative
information are not clearcut. Quantitative information may help potential fish
consumers understand the actual magnitude of certain concepts (e.g., comparative
risks). In some cases, however, understanding relative magnitudes may be
sufficient, and thus qualitative information may be an appropriate choice for
presenting information. Severity of comparative risks and degree of contaminant
exposure from certain fish species or waterbodies are types of information that may
be represented both quantitatively and qualitatively (Example 5.20).
-------
60
EXAMPLE 5.20 Qualitative vs. quantitative risk comparisions (example from
Connelly and Knuth 1993).
QUALITATIVE QUANTITATIVE
Risk Comparisons
Risk of Death
Risk Comparisons
Risk of Death
Level of Risk
Activity
Level of Risk
(chances
out of 1,000)
Activity
Higher Risk
Smoking 1-2 packs of
cigarettes per day
35-126
Smoking 1-2 packs of
cigarettes per day
Having 200 chest x-rays per year
7-30
Having 200 chest x-rays per year
Eating 1-10oz meat per week of
mixed Great Lakes saimonids
at 1984 contaminant levels
5-30
Eating 1-1 Ooz meal per week of
mixed Great Lakes saimonids
at 1984 contaminant levels
Driving a motor veftide
17
Driving a motor vehicle
Moderate Risk
Eating 1-8oz meal per week of
mixed Great Lakes saimonids
at .1984 contaminant levels
11-12
Eating 1-8oz meal per week erf
mixed Great Lakes saimonids
at 1984 contaminant levels
Eating 1-8oz meal per week of
mixed Great Lakes saimonids
at 1987 contaminant levels
3-6
Eating 1-8oz meal per week of
mixed Great Lakes saimonids
at 1987 contaminant levels
Breathing air in U.S. urban areas
at early 1980's contaminant levels
0.1-6
Breathing air in U.S. urban areas
at early 1980's contaminant levels
Recreational boating
3.5
Recreational boating
Lower Risk
Drinking 1-12oz beer per day
1-2
Drinking 1-12oz beer per day
Recreational hunting
1.5
Recreational hunting
Complications from insect bite
or sting
0.014
Complications from Insect bite
or sting
5.1.2.4 Reading level vs. audience abilities
Hie educational level an individual has completed will influence his or her ability to
comprehend written messages. Health advisory materials may be evaluated using a
readability test to estimate the educational level a reader must have to be able to
understand the materials. The risk communicator can then determine if the draft
health advisory information is likely to be understood by a majority of the target
audience by comparing the readability score with the educational characteristics of
the target audience.
Readability tests only offer an estimate of the ability of an audience to understand
the text. Pretesting the information directly with each target audience is the best
way to measure whether information is likely to be understood.
-------
61
Readability tests generally measure the structural difficulty of written materials,
such as the sentence structure and word length. Computer software exists to allow
readability evaluations of long documents (e.g., Rightwriter, Grammatick).
The language in which an advisory is presented should match the written language
abilities of the target audience. If English is not the native language of the
audience, alternative languages for advisory documents should be considered (see
Appendix B for examples). Depending on the audience, such materials may include
both English and the native language, or just the native language. If members of
the audience are bilingual or the audience is composed of those who read English
and those who do not, both languages are appropriate. For example, an advisory
printed in both English and Spanish may be appropriate for an Hispanic immigrant
community in which the majority of adults read Spanish but the youth read English.
The language of some cultures does not correspond to the written language of
English. In such situations, advisory warnings depicted through graphics,
diagrams, or other visual symbols should be considered. Wisconsin has developed
a visually-oriented format for the Hmong community (see Appendix B). Among
the Hmong, the written language is not the preferred communication mode. In
response, Wisconsin developed a series of colorized maps to indicate waters subject
to advisories, and the type of fish consumption restrictions. Stoplight colors were
used: red meant stop (do not eat), yellow meant caution (some restrictions exist),
and green meant okay to eat. Such maps are also useful with other audiences who
do not speak or read English.
5.1.3 Advisory Information Dissemination Mechanisms
The health advisory information must be packaged to conform to the characteristics
of the dissemination mechanisms, or channels, that will be used. This usually
requires tailoring the format and content of the information.
Choice of dissemination mechanisms must be influenced by the characteristics of
the target audiences. What information sources do audiences currently use for
health advisory or other kinds of information? What additional sources may be
accessible to audiences? Potential dissemination mechanisms include mass media,
specialized media, and interpersonal contacts.
See Appendix B for health advisory program examples of mass media and
specialized media materials.
5.1.3.1 Mass media
Mass media dissemination may involve written, video, and/or audio messages, via
television, radio, newspapers, magazines, billboards, or transit posters. Some types
of mass media (e.g., television, newspapers) can provide both general coverage of
health advisory-related issues, and specialized coverage of very specific messages
an agency is trying to convey. Example press releases are in Appendix B.
Opportunities for coverage through mass media include: featured news stories as
new or updated health advisories are issued; public service announcements;
entertainment programming especially on health or outdoors programs or columns
(e.g., segments on televised fishing shows); interview and live call-in shows; and
editorial columns or announcements. Each of these opportunities has the potential
to reach different types of audiences and to convery different messages.
-------
62
One of the best ways to gain access to and some degree of influence over various
media sources is to establish an ongoing relationship with certain key contacts in
media organizations, such as health and nutrition editors and sports or outdoors
editors and columnists. If an agency becomes a regular supplier of various types of
newsworthy information, not just health advisories, each type of news becomes
more likely to be featured. In an ongoing relationship, media staff are more likely
to call to confirm details of a story than in situations in which the agency contact is
totally unfamiliar to the media organization.
Be prepared for media inquiries. Pam Shubat, Minnesota Department of Health,
suggests keeping a written list of important "soundbites" handy near the telephone.
Insert these messages into every media call.
The U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services describes the features of using mass
media in health communications as follows (excerpted from USDHHS 1993):
The mass media can transmit news quickly to a broad audience but cannot
alone be expected to motivate behavior. The mass media are generally the
public's primary source of information but may be less trusted than more
intimate sources of information, and are constrained by time, space, and
newsworthiness, among other factors, to the extent they can explain
complex information properly and fully.
Media (news) may focus too much attention on new information or
information affecting limited segments of the population; may increase the
chances for miscommunication of complex or controversial news; may
communicate incomplete information (most crucially leaving out information
explaining what should be done about a health problem). Loss of control
over how the information is communicated may be a trade-off for broad and
rapid transmission.
Whether mass media is intentionally selected as one channel, or whether a
health issue appears as news, you should remember that the purpose of the
mass media is to inform and entertain, not educate. Therefore, if the
message is too complicated, or simply not considered interesting enough for
use by the media, you will be obligated to redesign the message so that it is
more appealing to media professionals and their perceptions of what their
audience wants. Working with media professionals will help assure that
messages are interesting as well as accurate, and may help you obtain
greater exposure for your program.
5.1.3.2 Specialized media
Specialized media may involve written, video, and audio materials designed
specifically for communicating health advisory information to selected audiences,
and distributed primarily by the health advisory agencies. A variety of specialized
media are available and have been used in health advisory programs. Specialized
media pertinent for health advisory information include the following (see Appendix
B for examples).
-------
63
Media types:
- Fishing regulations guides published by state agencies but including
health advisory information in addition to fishing regulation
information. The health advisory information in such guides may be
the complete text of health advisory brochures produced in the state,
or may include an excerpt with directions about how to obtain more
detailed information. See Appendix B.
- Health advisory brochures and pamphlets may be designed for general
public distribution or for selected audiences. Brochures for selected
audiences can key into the specific behaviors and health risk/benefit
tradeoffs pertinent to that group (e.g., women of childbearing age).
See Appendix B.
- Lake-specific fishing brochures may be produced that highlight the
specific fishery as well as the specific health advisory for that
location. See Appendix B.
- Newsletters help develop an ongoing rapport with selected audiences.
Newsletters are often an effective means to reach other information
"gatekeepers", i.e., those people who are key sources of information
for larger numbers of people in the target audiences an agency hopes
to reach. For example, biannual or quarterly newsletters to health
care providers can remind them of the importance of discussing
health advisory recommendations with their clients.
- Fact sheets are typically made available by request, or limited in
distribution to audiences in areas where interest in health advisories
has been expressed. Fact sheets typically include a level of detail
that may not be necessary for general distribution. Fact sheets may
be prepared about certain aspects of the health advisory program
(e.g., Fact Sheet on Health Advisory Risk Assessment), certain
chemicals (e.g., Fact Sheet on Health Effects of Mercury), or certain
waters (e.g., Fact Sheet on Lake Ontario Health Advisory). See
Appendix B.
- Posters may be created for general advertising of health advisories (e.g.,
at festivals or fairs), or for alerting users of contaminated
waterbodies about health advisories. Posted health advisory
warnings are typically limited in the amount and types of information
they may convey. See Appendix B.
- Free-loan videotapes may be particularly effective for reaching groups of
people if tapes are loaned to organization or community associations.
Videotapes can be very effective for communicating certain
techniques, such as fish cleaning, that are easier to understand via
demonstration. Videotapes can also be effective in conveying the
thoughts of real people who are faced with decisions about how
respond to health advisories. The emotions sometimes triggered by
health advisories can be reflected on videotape and thus recognized
as legitimate, instilling more trust in the agency among the target
audiences who view the videotape and see how the agency responds
to real concerns.
-------
64
- Postcards, to be returned to the agency, can be included in fishing
regulations guides, tourist magazines, chamber of commerce
materials, etc. as an easy way for people to request more details
about health advisories for the specific locations in which they will
be fishing.
- Comic strips often cannot portray details of health advisories, but can
capture the attention of specific audiences enough to stimulate an
interest in learning more about fish consumption health
recommendations.
Communicators must identify specific locations and techniques for distributing each
of these specialized media, considering the needs and abilities of the target
audiences.
Distribution techniques:
- Fishing regulations guides and general health advisory brochures may
be effectively placed at bait shops and fishing supply stores, and
points of fishing license sales.
- Specialized brochures for women of childbearing age may be placed in
women's clinics and pediatrician's offices.
- Lake-specific brochures may be made available at local bait shops,
marinas, chambers of commerce, and motels.
- Fact sheets may be advertised in general information such as fishing
regulations guides, but available by special request only, or
distributed at selected gatherings such as public hearings or
information meetings.
- Posted notices can be displayed at heavily used fishing access sites, along
reaches of particularly contaminated waters, or in urban or other
areas in which a high concentration of potential frequent fish
consumers may occur. Posted notices, however, are subject to
vandalism or theft, and may require a high level of maintenance.
- Free-loan videotapes may be particularly effective for reaching groups of
people if tapes are loaned to organization or community associations.
They may also be displayed at festivals or fairs to attract people to an
information booth at which further personal contact can be made, or
set on loop viewing in health clinics to inform a specific client base
about the issues associated with fish consumption.
5.1.3.3 Interpersonal contacts
Interpersonal contacts may have the greatest effect in stimulating a response to fish
contamination, either through adherence to the fish consumption limits in the
advisory or adoption of other behaviors (e.g., fish preparation techniques) that may
reduce exposure to contaminants (Connelly et al. 1992). Personal contact
establishes a relationship of trust and respect between people, but it also allows for
more complete understanding of health advisory information. The potential fish
-------
65
consumer can ask questions and receive answers immediately, and can directly
observe and be instructed in risk-reducing techniques such as proper fish-trimming
procedures.
Interpersonal contacts can be on-site or off-site. On-site contacts include those
contacts with fish consumers at the site of fish catch, fish preparation, or fish
consumption. Roving creel survey clerks gathering fisheries management data from
individual anglers can also distribute health advisory brochures at the end of the
creel interview. Communication interns may be stationed at frequently-used fishing
access sites to interact directly with anglers as they enter and leave the fishing site.
Staff may be stationed at fish cleaning stations or at fishing tournaments, to
distribute written information about health advisories, and/or demonstrate risk-
reducing fish trimming procedures. Low income nutrition assistance programs
often involve visits to individuals' homes. These visits may be an ideal time to
demonstrate in the home proper fish-cleaning and fish-cooking techniques.
Such on-site, personal contacts are costly in terms of staff time and training, but
may be appropriate for potentially high-risk populations. To increase effectiveness
of such contacts, key individuals in the community may be targeted through
personal contacts. These individuals then become trained to transfer this
information to the rest of the community.
In certain locations such as the Great Lakes and marine areas, charter boat operators
may be the key individuals that have the most potential to influence the behavior of
potential fish consumers. Efforts should be made to elicit the help of these
individuals in communicating an appropriate message to their clients. Health
advisory program staff should recognize, however, that a "limit fish consumption"
message should not be conveyed as a "do not catch fish" message when interacting
with this audience. Charter boat operators depend on fishing for their livelihood.
Many are willing to work within a health advisory program that encourages safe
fish harvest and consumption, because they can provide their clients with a healthier
experience. Charter operators will not be willing to work with a program that
strongly discourages use of the fishery.
Off-site personal contacts include town meetings, membership group meetings,
private counseling in health clinics or other offices, and staffing a toll-free
telephone hotline (e.g., "800" number). Health advisory program staff may attend
sporting group meetings to discuss health advisory program development and fish
consumption recommendations. Staff may arrange town meetings at contaminant
sites of high local concern, responding to questions raised by the community
members and sharing fish consumption advice and materials.
5.1.4 Timing of Information Exchange
Timing the dissemination of specific health advisory recommendations or general
fish consumption information depends on the accessibility of the target audience and
on the type of dissemination mechanisms to be used. Advisories to be printed in
fishing regulations guides, for example, must be available at the time the advisory
goes to print. Delays in contaminant monitoring programs, and therefore in
determining current consumption advice, may affect the range of alternative
communication mechanisms available.
A sense of timing, or knowing when to release health advisory information for
maximum public impact, is a critical factor for effective risk communication efforts
-------
66
(e.g., USDHHS, 1993). Knuth et al. (1993) demonstrated the effectiveness of
multiple contacts throughout the fishing season for causing anglers to think about
health advisories more frequently during the fishing season, potentially increasing
health advisory compliance.
Health advisories disseminated via fishing regulations guides are continual
reminders to anglers (if they consult their guides regularly). News releases, town
meetings, and other dissemination mechanisms, however, can be timed to coincide
with certain peaks in potential fish harvest or fish consumption. Such peaks may
include:
(1) the opening days of fishing seasons, particularly for those species
targeted in health advisories;
(2) the summer vacation season;
(3) the fall and spring spawning migrations of some species, targeted heavily
by anglers; and
(4) religious holidays emphasizing fish consumption, particularly in
religiously-centered communities (e.g., the Lenten season for
Hispanic or Catholic communities).
Information about fish contaminants or fish consumption in general may be featured
throughout the year in print or electronic media, stimulating greater public
awareness and leading to greater compliance with advisory recommendations.
5.2 PRETESTING THE COMMUNICATION STRATEGY
The purpose of pretesting is to ensure that the content, structure, and dissemination
of the health advisory materials are consistent with communication program
objectives. Pretesting also helps predict if the draft materials are likely to achieve
the ultimate outcomes desired. Pretesting health advisory communication strategies
includes analyzing the target audiences' responses to draft risk communication
materials and mechanisms through techniques that yield insights about the
knowledge, beliefs, behavior, and language of those audiences. Pretesting is part
of formative evaluation; see Section 6.2 on Formative Evaluation for further
discussion and examples.
Pretesting usually involves selection of a test group designed to reflect as many
characteristics of the ultimate target audiences as possible. It is not usually
necessary to ensure a large, statistically representative sample from the ultimate
population. The purpose is not to draw statistically significant conclusions about
the likely responses of the target population should the draft communication
materials be adopted. Rather, the purpose of pretesting is to identify the range of
concerns and potential problems that may occur should the draft materials be
implemented.
Pretesting options include personal contacts (e.g., personal or telephone interviews,
focus groups) and self-administered questionnaires (e.g., mailed forms). Interviews
and focus groups typically allow for greater interaction between agency personnel
and the pre-test participant, and sometimes between participants as in the case of
focus groups. Such interaction often produces more in-depth information than can
be gathered through mail surveys, for example.
-------
67
Selection of the individuals involved in pretesting is important. Agency personnel
familiar with the objectives of the health advisory risk communication program
should be included in pretesting. This agency group should be asked to: (1)
evaluate the accuracy of the draft text; (2) assess the likelihood that the draft
materials will facilitate achieving the communication program objectives; and (3)
assess whether the content addresses each of the desired outcomes (e.g., attitudes,
knowledge, behaviors). See Example 5.21 for a sample comment sheet for use in
agency reviews. Each agency staff reviewing the draft materials would be asked to
complete the comment sheet.
Individuals within the target audiences should be involved to assess whether the
draft materials are relevant, useful, and comprehensible. This target audience
group should be asked to indicate specific problems with the materials, suggest
improvements if they can, and suggest what they see as the likely outcomes should
these materials be used (e.g., what behavior would they predict for themselves after
receiving these materials?).
Mechanisms for collecting pretest information from target audiences include
individual and group contacts. Selected individuals may receive information either
delivered personally or through the mail. After they have had time to review it,
agency staff may contact those individuals by telephone or personal visit, to
ascertain the individual's response to the draft materials. Typically, a series of
questions including both open- and closed-ended questions will be most productive.
Closed-ended questions assure the agency will collect pretest information on
specific aspects of the draft materials about which some uncertainty exists. The use
of open-ended questions ensures the agency will likely leam of any very positive or
negative characteristics of the draft materials which may have been totally
unanticipated by the risk communicators.
Mail surveys may also be used during pretesting, with the mail questionnaire
received either simultaneously with or after the receipt of the draft materials. Use
of mail surveys for pretesting may require several followup contacts with potential
participants to ensure they will complete and return their forms in a timely manner.
Focus groups may also be used for pretesting purposes. Focus groups typically
consist of 8 to 10 participants, led by an experienced facilitator, and often
accompanied by an observer/recorder. Participants in focus groups may receive the
draft health advisory materials before or at the focus group meeting. Over the
course of about two hours, the meeting facilitator poses focused questions for the
group, attempting to ensure each person has an opportunity to present their
viewpoints, but allowing the group some interaction so people can build their ideas
off others' comments. The benefit of the focus group approach is the dialogue that
can occur among participants. Through this dialogue, the risk communicator can
often gain insight into the reasons for people's responses to draft health advisory
materials moreso than is possible in interview or mail survey settings. See Example
5.22 for sample focus group questions.
-------
68
EXAMPLE 5.21 Comment sheet for agency reviewers involved in health advisory
information pretests (drawn from USDHHS 1993).
Reviewer:
Health Advisory Target Audience: (List who the information is designed to reach.)
M^jor Objectives: (List from the health advisory program.)
Production Quality: (Do the materials look professional? Is the format appropriate
for the intended audiences and the intended dissemination mechanisms?)
Content: (Is the content clear and accurate? Is it up to date? Is it stimulating? Does
it perpetuate myths? Is it balanced?)
Credibility: (Is the content credible to the target audiences? Are the proposed
dissemination mechanisms credible to the audiences?)
Ability to Attract Attention: (What are the distinguishing qualities that are
innovative or unique, yet appealing to the target audiences?)
Ability to Convey Information: (Are the messages positive and clear?)
Ability to Change Attitudes: (Are the persuasive techniques used appropriate for
the target audiences?)
Ability to Elicit Appropriate Action: (Do the materials describe desired behavior?
Do they illustrate skills required?)
Appropriateness for Target Audience: (Will the materials meet the needs of the
designated audiences?)
Appropriateness for Statewide Distribution: (Will the materials stand alone, or
require specific interpretation? Are they inappropriate for certain audiences or
geographic regions?)
Recommendations: (How should the draft materials be modified before being
adopted? What type of further pretesting is needed?)
-------
69
EXAMPLE 5.22. Sample focus group questions for pretesting health advisory
materials (adapted from USDHHS 1993).
What seems to be the main idea this information is trying to get across to you?
Was there anything in the information that was confusing? What was it? What
do you think was confusing?
What was particularly worth remembering from this information?
What did you like about this information?
What did you dislike in this information, what bothered you?
Was there anything in the information that was hard to believe? What was it?
Was there anything left out of this information that you still want to know about
health advisories or fish consumption? What do you want to know?
5.2.1 Summary of pretesting techniques
Strengths and weakness of each group of pretesting technique are as follows; cost
comparisons were provided in Section 4:
Individual interviews:
Strengths: Discussion between interviewer and participant produces
in-depth responses; Some responses may be participant-
generated (i.e., through open-ended questions), with
opportunity for followup by the interviewer; Early draft
materials presenting general concepts can often be used as the
basis for participant assessment; Participants are generally
assured confidentiality; For telephone interviews, time
commitment of participant is usually limited to about one-half
hour; Depending on resources available, a statistically-valid
sample may be used to allow generalizations about the
population; Analyses can generally be completed moderately
quickly.
Weaknesses: In-person interviews are very costly in terms of time
and staff resources; Numerous in-person, individual
interviews may be difficult to schedule given time constraints
of the interviewer and participants; Requires skilled
interviewers, particularly for useful open-ended questions.
Mail surveys:
Strengths: Can involve a statistically-valid sample of the population
to yield insights about the entire population; Individuals are
guaranteed confidentiality to a great extent; Participant time
commitment is limited to one-half to one hour; Allows full
consideration of materials that require some consideration and
thought by the participant.
-------
70
Weaknesses: No direct interaction between agency and participant;
Materials must be fairly well-developed before being mailed;
Often time-consuming to allow for mailed requests and
returned responses; Analyses often time-consuming; Often
costly in terms of materials and time.
Focus groups:
Strengths: Direct interaction between agency and participants allows
for greater in-depth discussion and probing by the facilitator;
Some responses may be participant-generated; Individuals
within group can build off others' ideas; Health advisory
materials can be in draft concept form for discussion; Can be
completed, including analysis, fairly quickly.
Weaknesses: Confidentiality of individuals' statements is not
possible; Requires skilled facilitator to keep group on task and
assure all participants have an opportunity to speak; Size of
group does not yield statistically-valid generalizations about
the population; Requires fair time commitment from
participants.
5.3 IMPLEMENTING THE COMMUNICATION STRATEGY
Prior to implementation, a timetable of implementation activities should be
prepared. The timetable should be checked to assure all elements of the
communication strategy (e.g., each dissemination mechanism, timing issues) are
represented. Care should be taken to assure a smooth flow of implementation
activities, allowing sufficient preparation time and early scheduling of any activities
that are prerequisites for other components of the communication plan.
Included in the implementation timetable should be certain checkpoints or
milestones (see Section 6.2 on Formative Evaluation) that are measured during
implementation. Such checkpoints help staff track progress according to what was
planned, and identify problems before they become major impediments to program
success. Problems identified may indicate changes that are needed to the content of
health advisory materials, dissemination mechanisms, or timeline. The original
communication strategy can be altered to include the new information being learned
through implementation of the communication program. Monitoring and flexibility
are often the keys to program success.
During implementation of the health advisory communication strategy, staff should
periodically assess whether;
- planned communication activities are being conducted;
- the context of the health advisory communication problem has changed
(e.g., has another organization distributed unanticipated,
contradictory information?);
- each target audience is being reached;
-------
71
- responses of target audiences seem to be those desired as reflected in the
program objectives (but recognize that achieving some objectives or
observing specific results may occur long after the health advisory
program is implemented);
- modifications are needed to the original timeline, and why;
- modifications are needed to the planned communication activities, and
why;
- modifications are needed to the staff and budget requirements anticipated
for the communication program.
5.4 MODIFYING THE COMMUNICATION STRATEGY IN AN ONGOING
PROGRAM
Communication strategies should not remain static over time. The context of the
communication problem may change, demanding a revised problem analysis and
modified program objectives (see Section 3). The information needs of the target
audiences may change over time, requiring different advisory content or tools to
disseminate that content, or new audiences may be identified (see Section 4).
"Pretesting" information (see Section 5.2) in an ongoing program occurs constantly.
Each time an individual receives health advisory information, it is being tested.
The key as an agency is to remain responsive to, indeed, to identify, every
opportunity for gathering these "pretest" data.
Inquiries received by an agency from individuals requesting clarification of health
advisory information are a rich source of test data. Who were the individuals who
seemed to have difficulty with various aspects of the health advisory? Why did
they have questions? What modifications are warranted in health advisory content
or dissemination methods during the next revision? Inquiries may be received by
telephone, mail, at public meetings on health advisory or other related or unrelated
topics, at state fairs, at workshops, indeed, anytime agency staff interact with
citizens. To the extent possible, such feedback should be recorded and shared with
those involved in the health advisory communication process (see Section 6,
Evaluation).
The health advisory risk communication process is iterative (see Fig. 2.1).
Evaluation (see Section 6), no matter how extensive, may result in communicators
returning to the problem analysis, audience needs assessment, communication
strategy design, or communication strategy implementation phases of the
communication process.
5.5 SUMMARY CHECKLIST
1. Review health advisory communication program objectives.
2. Review target audience needs assessment.
3. Determine the health advisory format and tone relative to target audience needs.
Consider:
a) use of text, tables, and graphics;
-------
72
b) using a cajoling rather than a commanding tone;
c) using a combination of quantitative and qualitative information;
d) reading level of the materials vs. the reading abilities of the target
audience.
4. Determine the health advisory content relative to target audience needs, and to
the limitations of eventual dissemination mechanisms. Consider:
a) core fish consumption recommendations;
b) description of chemicals of concern and their effects;
c) explicit comparisons of the relative safety of fish species, sizes, and/or
fishing locations;
d) description of adverse health effects from eating fish;
e) description of health benefits of eating fish;
f) comparison of health benefits and health risks;
g) comparison of health risks from fish consumption with other risks;
h) description of risk-reducing fish cleaning and cooking methods;
i) description of assumptions made in risk assessment and risk management
decisions;
j) description of uncertainties in risk assessment; and
k) suggestions how to tailor general core fish consumption recommendations
to an individual's personal circumstances.
5. Determine which dissemination mechanisms are accessible to target audiences,
and meet the needs for communicating the content required. Consider:
a) mass media;
b) specialized media; and
c) interpersonal contacts.
6. Determine the frequency with which information should be disseminated via each
of the dissemination mechanisms.
7. Package the health advisory information to conform to the characteristics of the
dissemination mechanisms that will be used.
-------
73
8. Conduct pretesting to determine the most effective health advisory content,
format, and dissemination mechanisms to reach target audiences. Consider
using:
a) in-person individual interviews;
b) telephone surveys;
c) mail surveys; and
d) focus groups.
9. Construct a timetable of all anticipated events in the communication program,
indicating milestones to be monitored.
10. Implement the communication strategy, conducting periodic assessments of the
implementation process.
-------
74
SECTION 6
DEVELOPING, IMPLEMENTING, AND INTERPRETING A RISK
COMMUNICATION PROGRAM EVALUATION
The objectives of this section are to: (1) discuss the importance of preparing for
program evaluation throughout the design and implementation of the
communication program; and (2) describe the purpose and techniques of formative
evaluation, process evaluation, and summative evaluation. Evaluation is a key
feature that creates an iterative risk communication process. Results of an
evaluation may send the risk communicator back to the problem analysis phase, to
audience characterization, or to the strategy design and implementation phases
(Figure 2.5).
6.1 PLANNING FOR EVALUATION
The capacity to conduct meaningful evaluations is determined in large part as the
communication program is planned. Evaluation conducted only as an afterthought
after implementation of the communication program has been completed is likely to
be of less value to the health advisory program than an evaluation planned and
conducted as an integral part of the risk communication process.
Creating the capacity to conduct meaningful evaluations includes:
(1) Specifying clear, measurable objectives that indicate the outcomes to
be achieved for each target audience. These objectives indicate what
outcomes should be measured during summative evaluation.
(2) Measuring target audience characteristics prior to beginning the
communication program. Such measurements conducted at the time
audience information needs are assessed provide the baseline, or
before-program, data necessary for evaluating the changes associated
with the implementation of the communication program.
(3) Developing clear plans specifying intended communication activities,
audiences, staff involvement, budget, etc. Process evaluations
conducted during program implementation must have a basis for
comparison to assess if program resources are being used as
intended.
(4) Including appropriate data-gathering activities throughout the
implementation of the communication program to ensure the
information necessary for evaluation is available when needed. For
example, if evaluation will be based in part on the number of
telephone calls received requesting information, a log of such calls
should be kept throughout the program period.
(5) Committing staff time, budget, and other resources to evaluation as
an integral part of the health advisory communication program.
Costs for communication program evaluation may range from several
hours of staff time during formative evaluation to tens of thousands
of dollars for comprehensive, statewide summative evaluation
studies.
-------
75
6.2 FORMATIVE EVALUATION
6.2.1 Purposes
Formative evaluation is an assessment of the quality of the risk communication
planning efforts. Formative evaluation has also been termed planning evaluation.
It is conducted while the communication plans are still being formed. Formative
evaluation assesses the accuracy of the original characterization of the risk
communication problem, and helps the risk communicator determine if the problem
analysis phase of the risk communication program is adequate.
Formative evaluation is a key element in ongoing programs. The results of process
and summative evaluations will likely point to modifications required in some
aspect of the risk communication program. As new (modified) communication
plans are developed, formative evaluation is important.
6.2.1.1 Match between objectives and implementation plans
Formative evaluation considers to what extent the planned communication program
is likely to achieve the communication program objectives. Questions such as the
following are answered:
- Is the content likely to facilitate achievement of health advisory program
objectives? If not, why not?
- Is the content relevant to the desired outcomes (e.g., advisory knowledge,
community education, fishing behavior, fish consumption behavior)?
- Is the content likely to be relevant and useful to the target audiences?
- What barriers exist in the target community or location that might mitigate
against the proposed communication plan?
Evaluation of draft content and dissemination plans at this early stage allows for
critical improvements to be made in the communication program before costly
commitments have been made in terms of materials or time. Early evaluation also
allows the risk communicator to confirm that the original risk communication
problem was defined accurately. If not, the communication process returns to the
problem analysis phase.
Formative evaluation at this stage may also help to clarify program objectives,
indicating objectives that may simply be unrealistic or inappropriate for that
particular agency to achieve. Formative evaluations may result either in refined
communication program plans, or in refined program objectives.
6.2.2 Techniques
Formative evaluation occurs during the problem analysis and objective-setting,
audience needs assessment, and communication strategy pretesting phases of the
risk communication process. Formative evaluation costs may range from several
hours of staff time in brainstorming and review activities, to several thousands of
dollars spent on pretesting activities. Minimal resources are needed for readability
tests; modest resources for on-site interviews; and more substantial resources for
several focus groups or numerous in-depth individual interviews (USDHHS 1993).
-------
76
6.2.2.1 Formative evaluation in problem analysis
During the problem analysis phase, formative evaluation prompts staff to consider
whether all relevant characteristics of the context in which the health advisory
program will be conducted have been considered adequately. Staff from multiple
agencies involved in the health advisory program should be involved. In some
cases, selected members of potential target audiences, or of service organizations
whose clients are potential target audiences, should be involved as "advisors" to
suggest any elements of the communication context that may have been overlooked
by agency staff. Often, group brainstorming and discussion is a productive
technique to ensure adequate problem analysis.
6.2.2.2 Formative evaluation during audience needs assessment
Formative evaluation during the audience needs assessment phase is conducted to
ensure each potential audience is assessed, and adequate profiles are developed.
Staff should compare communication program objectives with the target audiences
being assessed. Profiles for each audience deemed important in the program
objectives should be available when designing the communication strategy.
Audience profiles should be checked to ensure they are as complete as possible
within time and resource constraints, and specific enough for eventual evaluation of
communication program outcomes. Information collected during the audience
needs assessment usually provides the baseline against which changes in audience
behavior or beliefs related to fish consumption will be evaluated.
Formative evaluation during the audience needs assessment phase can also be used
to double-check the relevancy of the program objectives. If the audience needs
assessment indicates a particular target audience has already adopted appropriate
fish consumption patterns, that audience may be dropped from the program
objectives or receive less emphasis than originally planned.
6.2.2.3 Formative evaluation during communication strategy design
Pretesting draft health advisory materials is the most common type of formative
evaluation during the design phase of the communication strategy. Pretesting helps
ensure health advisory materials will be relevant, understandable, credible, and
acceptable to the target audiences, and have a good likelihood of resulting in
desired responses among the audiences. Pretesting normally involves review of
draft health advisory materials by members of the target audience, either in
individual or group settings. See Section 5.2 for detailed discussion of pretesting
techniques and examples.
Formative evaluation during the strategy design phase also includes periodic
comparison of the proposed communication tools with the program objectives and
the audience needs identified in the previous phase of the communication process.
As various communication tools are considered for adoption, they may be assessed
relative to the following:
- How does the proposed health advisory content relate to program
objectives?
e.g., Are the materials sufficiently clear for an angler to determine
how to clean a fish for maximum contaminant reduction? Do the
-------
77
materials indicate clearly which contaminants and which fishing
locations these techniques would be useful for?
- How does the proposed health advisory content relate to the information
needs of the target audiences, identified during the audience needs
assessment?
e.g., Is the recommendation to release fish of certain lengths
appropriate for Southeast Asian anglers fishing the Mississippi?
How regularly do they catch such fish? Do they normally keep such
fish? For what purpose? If they release these fish, what fish can
they keep?
- How likely is it that the dissemination mechanisms being considered will
reach the intended target audiences?
e.g., To what extent do low-income women of childbearing age
frequent the health care clinics we've targeted for distributing the
advisory brochure? Where else might they obtain health advisory
information?
- Does the proposed timing of the communication events correspond to the
likely fish consumption episodes of target audiences?
e.g., We have to wait until the summer fish tissue sample is
processed to determine what the new fish consumption
recommendations will be. This means we will have new advice
available in February. Should we release the information then, or
wait until the peak of the fishing season (e.g., June), or do both?
Taking the time during communication strategy design to answer such formative
evaluation questions can prevent the selection and implementation of
communication activities with little likelihood of achieving program objectives or
meeting the needs of target audiences, and greatly improve the prospects for
program success.
6.3 PROCESS EVALUATION
Process evaluation assesses the correspondence between activities planned and
activities implemented. Process evaluation focuses on health advisory program
implementation activities, such as to what extent health advisoty messages were
disseminated as planned, or if the anticipated risk communication budget was
actually available to an agency. Process evaluation should be ongoing, in both new
and established risk communication programs.
6.3.1 Match between implementation plans and reality
Typical questions in a process evaluation include whether health advisory
communication activities are being conducted on the intended time schedule, with
the intended dissemination mechanisms, within budget, and using the intended and
available staff and other resources. Process evaluations can be conducted during
the course of the communication program and used to modify the communication
program during implementation. There is no need to wait until the end of a
particular program to evaluate its implementation process. However, program
-------
78
implementation should be sufficiently underway to be able to permit accurate
monitoring of: timetable and budget management, appropriateness of staff and
resource assignments, and the effectiveness of dissemination
mechanisms/communication strategies.
Process evaluations conducted during the implementation of a communication
program can be used to modify the program before too many resources (including
time) have been expended. A process evaluation may determine that the content of
a message is contrary to certain program objectives. This may stimulate a change
in message content before the program is fully implemented. A process evaluation
may show that the intended staff have not been committed to the communication
program. Staff reassignments may be made to put the program back on its intended
track.
6.3.2 Techniques: Process evaluation during communication strategy implementation
After the communication activities are underway, process evaluation focuses on
monitoring and improving the implementation process. Process evaluations help
assure that the communication program is progressing as planned.
Costs of process evaluations can be minimized if appropriate monitoring activities
are built into the regular responsibilities of health advisory program staff. Proper
record-keeping as activities are conducted will minimize the amount of additional
effort required to produce process evaluation information. Minimal resources are
required for routine recordkeeping; modest resources are required for ongoing
comparisons of activities with program plans; and substantial resources are required
for communication program audits conducted by external review teams (USDHHS
1993).
Problems in carrying out certain planned communication activities, or with the
likely effectiveness of certain health advisory materials are also identified during
process evaluation. Staff, target audiences, or partners in communication activities
may be the source of process evaluation information. For example, if health care
providers have been enlisted as partners to disseminate health advisory brochures
targeted toward women, they should be asked how that process seems to be
working. Did they receive the brochures in a timely manner? Have they run out?
What comments do they hear from their clients? If problems are identified early in
the implementation process, modifications may be made to ensure a good
probability of program success.
Process evaluation activities may include:
- regular contacts with communication partners to determine if they are
receiving their materials in a timely manner, and how receptive their
clients are to the materials;
- review of distribution points for health advisory materials to ensure
materials are being distributed and are still available (e.g., at fishing
license sales offices);
- reviewing print media clips provided by a clipping service to determine
how news releases and interviews with media staff are being
published;
-------
79
- monitoring the volume and frequency of requests for health advisory
information (e.g., by mail, through "800" telephone number);
- monitoring the length of time taken to reply to information requests;
- conducting telephone interviews or focus groups with key members of
target audiences to assess how well materials are reaching individuals
and how they are being received.
Process evaluation is an important component of ongoing health advisory
communication programs. Agencies may receive solicited or unsolicited feedback
from individuals regarding how clearly an advisory message is stated, how easily
accessible the information is, or questions that still remain regarding the safety of
fish consumption.
Feedback may occur at any time, in any place. For example, health agency staff in
Minnesota held a public meeting on remediation plans for a contaminated river. A
member of the audience suggested the agency should give a better explanation of a
certain phrase in the health advisory. Although the purpose of the public meeting
was not to evaluate health advisory communication, valuable information about the
advisory's effectiveness and clarity was gained. The health agency made the
suggested change in the next iteration of the advisory (P. Shubat, MN Dept. of
Health, personal communication).
6.4 SUMMATIVE EVALUATION
6.4.1 Purposes
Summative evaluation assesses the outcomes or impacts produced through the risk
communication program (thus far). This type of evaluation measures the effects or
impacts of the risk communication program on the target audiences. It provides a
summation of program effects after program implementation. To what extent did
the health advisory communication program achieved its objectives?
Typical outcomes that are assessed include changes in awareness, knowledge,
behaviors, and beliefs and attitudes among target audiences. Outcomes may be
intentional or unanticipated. Evaluation methods should be selected to allow
assessment of both types, particularly when unanticipated outcomes may be very
important relative to agency program objectives or to long-term program success.
Ideally, the status of these factors prior to the health advisory communication
program will be known, so before- and after-program comparisons may be made.
Summative evaluations are not reserved for programs that are "ending" in some
way. Summative evaluations are key elements of ongoing risk communication
programs. The time elements included in risk communication objectives (e.g.,
achieve by April, 1996) indicate when summative evaluations should occur.
Summative evaluations help measure whether the outcomes specified in
communication objectives were attained by the target date.
6.4.2 Indicators
The social-psychological model of human response to health advisories (Fig. 4.1)
implies a variety of personal outcomes may be associated with health advisory
-------
80
communication programs. The discussion below focuses on individual outcomes
that may be assessed during summative evaluation.
In addition to individual outcomes, societal, cultural, and local or regional impacts
are possible. Individual outcomes (e.g., reduced fishing activity) may contribute to
regional impacts (e.g., weakened economies in areas dependent on recreational
fishing and tourism). See Volume 3 in this series, Risk Management, for a
discussion of the potential societal, cultural, and economic impacts associated with
health advisory programs. Each of these impacts may be an important indicator to
measure during summative evaluations.
6.4.2.1 Audience knowledge
Summative evaluations may assess the extent of awareness of health advisories
within a target audience, and the extent of knowledge related to health advisories.
Connelly et al. (1992) assessed knowledge in six areas related to health advisories.
Those areas and specific knowledge items are listed in Example 6.1. Measurement
of knowledge related to health advisories should focus on those concepts addressed
in the program being evaluated.
6.4.2.2 Audience behaviors
Summative evaluations may compare the behaviors of target audiences with the
desirable behaviors promoted through the health advisory communication program.
Evaluations should measure: (1) awareness and adoption of behaviors promoted
through the health advisory information; and (2) other behaviors that may be a
response to health advisories, whether desirable or undesirable.
Behaviors assessed in a summative evaluation may include:
(1) frequency and amount of consumption of sport-caught fish with health
advisory restrictions;
(2) frequency and amount of consumption of fish not restricted in health
advisories, whether sport-caught or commercial;
(3) fish preparation methods including fish cleaning and cooking techniques,
some of which may reduce exposure to some contaminants;
(4) extent of fishing activities, including frequency of fishing trips, species
sought, locations fished; and
(5) frequency of use of health advisory information sources, and types used.
See Appendix C for examples of questions that may be used in summative
evaluations to assess behavioral outcomes and impacts (see especially Knuth et al.
1993).
-------
81
EXAMPLE 6.1 Knowledge areas that may be evaluated during the summative
evaluation process (from Connelly et al. 1992, see Appendix C).
Knowledge about effects of contaminants on fish:
- Many chemical contaminants are found in greater amounts in fatty fish than in
lean fish.
- Older fish generally have more contaminants in them then younger fish have.
- Fish contaminated with chemicals may not taste odd.
- Fish contaminated with chemicals may or may not behave normally.
Knowledge about negative health effects of fish consumption:
- Eating contaminated fish over many years increases my health risk.
- Eating contaminated fish can result in accumulation of chemicals in my body.
- Chemicals from fish can have a greater impact on developing organs in
children or unborn babies than on organs in adults.
- Potential negative health effects from eating contaminated fish include nervous
system disorders and cancer.
- Negative health effects from eating contaminated fish are mainly long term.
Knowledge about positive health effects of fish consumption:
- Increasing fish consumption reduces dietary fat and helps to control weight.
- Eating fish oils decreases the risk of coronary heart disease.
Knowledge about specific advisory recommendations:
- Maximum number of fish meals eaten from state's waters.
- Maximum number of fish meals women of childbearing age and children under
15 should eat if fish have elevated contaminant levels.
Knowledge about the advisory process:
- Who should be contacted if someone wanted to know more about health effects
from exposure to chemical contaminants.
- Who should be contacted if someone wanted to know more about contaminant
levels in fish.
- Method used to measure contaminant levels in fish (e.g., fillet with skin on).
(Continued on next page.)
-------
82
(Example 6.1 continued from previous page.)
Knowledge about other risk-reducing behaviors:
- To reduce the levels of chemical contaminants in fish, you should do which of
the following? (e.g., remove the belly fat, remove the skin, broil the fish, pan
fry the fish).
6.4.2.3 Audience beliefs
Beliefs about fish consumption, fish contamination, and health advisory programs
may greatly influence the behavior of potential fish consumers (see Fig. 4.1).
Survey instrument examples of belief measures can be found in Appendix C.
One of the most important beliefs to measure may be the extent to which an
individual believes he/she is adhering to the advisory recommendations. Research
at Cornell University has demonstrated differences between such beliefs and actual
fish consumption behaviors measured in mail-survey and angler-diary studies. In
these studies, anglers were asked if they believed they were following the fish
consumption advice in health advisories. Anglers were also asked to report their
actual fish consumption. The two measures were compared. Actual fish
consumption often exceeded health advisory recommendations, even for anglers
who believed they were following the recommendations. Such a discrepancy
indicates the need to reexamine the clarity and accessibility of health advisory
recommendations for these audiences.
6.4.3 Techniques
Summative evaluation methods include those discussed in Section 4 on target
audience assessment (e.g., focus groups, mail and telephone surveys). The major
differences in studies conducted for audience assessment purposes vs. summative
evaluation are timing and sample size considerations. A larger sample size is often
needed for summative evaluation studies compared to audience assessments.
Therefore, costs of conducting summative evaluation studies will be on the high end
of those reported in Section 4.
Audience assessment studies are conducted prior to implementing a health advisory
communication program. These data provide the baseline for later comparison in a
summative evaluation study. Summative evaluation studies are conducted after the
health advisory communication program has been implemented. The time frame
included in program objectives (e.g., achieve by April, 1996) will indicate when
the summative evaluation should be conducted.
The larger sample size required for summative evaluation is generally necessary if
the program evaluators seek to measure statistically significant program outcomes
and impact in large regions (e.g., statewide). Samples for audience assessment
purposes may not have been selected to produce statistically valid predictions about
the entire state population.
Planning for summative evaluation, therefore, is critical even at the early stages of
the risk communication process. If a large sample size is required for a before-and-
after study of health advisory communication effectiveness, the large "before"
-------
83
sample should be identified and used during the audience assessment phase of the
risk communication process.
Care must be taken to select a sufficient sample from among the audiences actually
targeted by the communication program. For example, licensed anglers may
constitute 10-40% of the general population in a state. A sample drawn from
among the general public, therefore, would be expected to contain only 10-40%
licensed anglers. If the health advisory communication program was targeted
mainly toward licensed anglers, it would be unreasonable to expect to measure a
communication program impact in the entire general public sample. Rather, data
from licensed anglers should provide the main basis for summative evaluation.
Data from the rest of the general public sample could provide an indication of
unanticipated or unplanned outcomes of the health advisory communication
program.
Methods in addition to those discussed in Section 4 may also be useful in
summative evaluations. Interviews and groups discussions among agency staff
provide data on staff perceptions about the outcome and effectiveness of the
communication program and of their own efforts. See Example 6.2 for a sample of
interagency focus group questions.
EXAMPLE 6.2. Focus group questions for interagency evaluation of health
advisory communication programs.
What agency objectives did the health advisory materials seem to help achieve,
or at least move us toward achieving?
What objectives haven't we begun to accomplish? So, what seems to be missing
from the advisory communication strategy (e.g., content, format, dissemination
plan)?
What positive reactions have you heard from or observed among target
audiences? So what seems to be working in the advisory materials?
What negative reactions have you heard from or observed among target
audiences? So what seems to need improvement in the advisory materials?
What changes do we need to make in our advisory communication program
because of new information or new assumptions?
What other kinds of evaluation should we do?
What kinds of pretesting do we need for new information?
Cooperative ventures among agencies may be useful. For example, creel survey
data collected by fishery management agencies provide an indication of fishing
effort, fish harvest, and locations fished. Current creel survey data from an area
subject to an advisory may be compared with historical creel data from the same
area, or with current data from a similar area not subject to an advisory. These
comparisons provide an assessment of the impact of health advisories on particular
fisheries.
-------
84
All aspects of summative evaluations need not be expensive, however. With a little
creativity, evaluators can usually identify qualitative and quantitative methods that
provide at least some indication of the outcomes and impacts produced by health
advisory communication programs.
Some states (e.g., Minnesota) include a tear-out survey form within the health
advisory brochure. Readers are asked to complete the survey and return it to the
agency (see Appendix B). These questionnaires may include a few specific
questions about the advisory materials (e.g., Does the fish advisory help you in
choosing fishing locations?), and opportunity for open-ended comments about the
advisory program. This approach is relatively low cost because multiple mailings
and complex sampling schemes are not required. Comments are received from
actual communication program clients. The major drawback of this approach is the
uncertainty about who is submitting comments. Since a representative sample of
program participants was not drawn, the agency cannot generalize the results back
to the target audience population. Communication staff do not know if they are
receiving only the most positive, most negative, or a fair distribution of responses
to the health advisory program.
See Example 6.3 for a sample form for recording evaluation comments as they are
received during the implementation of the communication program. Systematically
recording comments received over the telephone, at public meetings, or in other
public presentations can provide a low-cost yet rich source of summative evaluation
information. (This information collected during program implementation can also
be used to improve the communication process as it occurs.)
Without summative evaluation, communication programs are unlikely to improve
through future efforts. Minimal resources are required for activity assessments that
rely on routine recordkeeping (such as a record of the number of health advisory
brochures distributed), or use document review as the main information sources;
moderate to substantial resources are required for limited or extensive assessments
of target audience knowledge gain or behavior change.
EXAMPLE 6.3. Form for recording comments about health advisory materials
that are received over the telephone or at public meetings and presentations.
Date:
Contact Type: (e.g., public meeting on risk assessment; public meeting on
Superfund sites; telephone inquiry about health advisory recommendations)
Reason for Comment: (What aspects of the health advisory prompted
comment? Having a check-off list may be useful.)
text in general
tables
maps or diagrams
length
quantitative information
recommended frequencies of consumption
(Continued on next page.)
-------
85
(Example 6.3 continued from previous page.)
special recommendations for women of childbearing age and children
recommendations for a specific waterbody
(list: )
chemicals of concern and their effects
help identifying what is safe to eat
adverse health effects from eating fish
health benefits of eating fish
want to know if he/she should eat the fish
want to know if I eat the fish
comparison of sport- vs. commercial fish
comparison of fish consumption with other risks
fish cleaning or cooking techniques
how information was distributed
other (list: )
Negative Comments: (What did the individual or group dislike about the health
advisory materials? Checklists may be useful to develop tailored to the types of
comments an agency typically receives.)
confusing (Probe: )
hard to understand (Probe: )
incomplete (Probe: )
biased (Probe:
not useful (Probe: )
inaccurate (Probe: )
not interesting (Probe: )
not informative (Probe: )
did not help person choose fishing locations
did not help person decide how much fish to eat
did not help person learn how to clean and cook fish
did not answer specific information needs about:
Positive Comments: (What did the individual or group like about the health
advisory materials? Checklists may be useful to develop tailored to the types of
comments an agency typically receives.)
very clear (Probe: )
easy to understand (Probe: )
complete (Probe: )
unbiased (Probe:
very useful (Probe: )
accurate (Probe: )
very interesting (Probe: )
very informative (Probe: )
(Continued on next page.)
-------
86
(Example 6.3 continued from previous page.)
helped person choose fishing locations
helped person decide how much fish to eat
helped person learn how to clean and cook fish
answered specific information needs about:
Specific Comments: (Transcribe comments that would be useful to keep on
record.)
Followup Required;
- For caller/informant: (List any type of information to be sent to the
person you talked with.)
- For communication program: (List any changes you should consider
making in the communication program in response to these comments.)
- Date Followup Completed: (Provides a system for tracking whether
communication followup activities are completed.)
6.5 SUMMARY CHECKLIST
1. Build an evaluation capacity into every element of the health advisory
communication program.
2. Conduct a formative evaluation to assess the extent to which:
a) the problem analysis is sufficient;
b) adequate audience profiles have been prepared for all intended audiences;
and
c) a planned communication program is likely to achieve the communication
program objectives, through pretesting and comparison of plans with
program objectives and audience needs.
3. Conduct a process evaluation to assess the extent to which the communication
program is being implemented as intended.
4. Conduct a summative evaluation to assess the outcomes of the health advisory
communication program, considering original program objectives.
Indicators may include:
a) audience awareness and knowledge;
b) audience behaviors; and
c) audience beliefs.
-------
87
5. Remember that evaluation of ongoing programs is continuous. Formative,
process, and summative evaluations of the communication program should
be a part of each cycle of health advisory program review and revision.
-------
88
SECTION 7
RESPONDING TO INQUIRIES FROM THE PUBLIC
The objective of this section is to provide guidance related to the overall
relationship of the risk communication agency with its clients, specifically geared to
assisting the agency with responding to inquiries from its clients.
7.1 HOW PEOPLE MAY VIEW RISKS
7.1.1 General Perceptions of Risks and Implications for Health Advisory
Communication Programs
Fish consumption recommendations in health advisories are based on calculation of
risk, weighing the seriousness of the hazard posed by consumption of chemically-
contaminated fish. The set of criteria used to judge the seriousness of the hazard,
however, may differ considerably among experts and the public (Scherer, 1991).
Risk experts tend to base their judgments of risk on criteria such as how likely an
adverse effect is, and how severe that effect may be. The public, however, may
use a much broader set of criteria in judging risk.
Sandman (1987) described a combination of more than twenty factors as the
"outrage" associated with a risk by the public. These factors include the
voluntariness and fairness of a risk, the degree of personal control one has over the
risk, and the process by which risk-related decisions are made. Slovic et al.
(1982), Slovic (1987), Covello (1989), and Merkhofer (1987) suggested risk
perceptions are influenced by a variety of factors. For risks associated with eating
contaminated fish, these may include:
(1) the perceived and actual likelihood that a person will become ill from
eating contaminated fish;
(2) the severity, immediacy, and familiarity of the negative effects of fish
consumption;
(3) the personal stake an individual has in fishing and/or eating fish;
(4) the potential impact on young or unborn children;
(5) the visibility of "victims" of fish consumption;
(6) scientific uncertainty about the seriousness of health risks;
(7) voluntariness and controllability of exposure to contaminants in fish;
(8) clarity of the benefits associated with fishing and fish consumption;
(9) sense of equity, or fairness of the distribution of costs and benefits
associated with health advisory recommendations;
(10) trust in the institutions that manage public health, fisheries, and aquatic
systems; and
-------
89
(11) media and other coverage of fish contamination and consumption
issues.
Baird (1986) found that denial of risks is closely associated with those most at risk.
Health advisory communicators, therefore, may expect that those most involved in
catching and eating fish may exhibit the greatest denial.
Douglas and Wildavsky (1982) explained that culture and societal values influence
perception of risk. Relevant cultural factors for fish consumers may include (1) the
importance of fishing activities to the local community, either economically or for
the social network; (2) the importance of fish in the diet, either as a convenient and
inexpensive protein source, or for religious or spiritual significance; (3) the
relationship of the health advisory agencies within the target audience community,
including the degree of trust and credibility placed in the agencies; and (4) the
relationship of the polluter or chemicals of concern to the local community and
economy.
For these reasons, health advisory communication programs may not achieve the
outcomes risk managers seek. Health advisory communicators should try to: (1)
understand the factors that influence perceptions and behaviors associated with the
risks of fish consumption among the target audience; (2) develop communication
strategies that respond to these factors; and (3) realize that limitations exist on what
risk communication programs can accomplish. Health advisory communication
programs, no matter how well designed and implemented, cannot guarantee that
certain behaviors or beliefs will be adopted by the target audiences.
7.2 STRATEGIES FOR ESTABLISHING TRUST AND CREDIBILITY
Information sources perceived as credible are more likely to influence attitudes and
behaviors of target audiences than those that are not perceived as such (Petty and
Cacioppo, 1981; Miller, 1987). Credibility of information is related to many
factors, including the communicating agency's reputation for honesty vs. deceit,
and education vs. coercion, and the presence of contradictory information,
particularly from similar types of information sources (National Research Council,
1989).
7.2.1 USEPA's Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency developed and promotes actively "The
Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication" (USEPA, 1992). Each of the seven
rules includes several specific elements aimed to foster an effective risk
communication program. These rules, their specific elements, and their
implications for health advisory programs are:
(1) Accept and involve the public as a legitimate partner.
a) Demonstrate respect for the public by involving the community early in
the decision-making process.
b) Identify all parties that have an interest or stake in the issue or problem.
For health advisory programs, this rule implies that agencies will identify
affected audiences, and include their perspectives in selection of the risk
communication strategies. For example, agencies can show a respect for
-------
90
and commitment to addressing the information needs of the target audiences
by learning from the affected public whether it is enough to simply list
recommended fish consumption limits, or rather, that health effects
information should be included.
(2) Plan carefully and evaluate your efforts.
a) Establish clear and explicit risk communication objectives.
b) Classify and segment various groups among audiences.
c) Aim communications at specific subgroups in audience.
d) Provide sufficient information to discuss risks.
e) Train staff in communication skills.
JO Pretest messages.
g) Evaluate efforts.
The purpose of each of the preceding sections of this manual is to provide guidance
to the health advisory risk communicator on each of these elements of health
advisory communication planning and evaluation. See particularly Sections 3, 4, 5,
and 6.
(3) Listen to the public's concerns.
a) Make no assumptions about what people know, think, or want done about
risks.
b) Find out what people are thinking, using, for example, interviews and
surveys.
c) Recognize people's emotions.
d) Recognize broader economic and political considerations.
See Section 3 and 4 in this manual regarding the application of these elements to
health advisory communication programs. This cardinal rule underscores the
importance of understanding your target audiences.
(4) Be honest, frank, and open.
a) Admit when you do not know an answer or are uncertain.
b) Get back to people with answers.
c) Do not minimize or exaggerate the level of risk.
d) Discuss data uncertainties, strengths, and weaknesses.
e) Identify worst-case estimates, and cite ranges of risk estimates when
appropriate.
-------
91
f) If in doubt, share more information rather than less.
Cardinal rule Four emphasizes the importance of including health advisory content
addressing the assumptions and limitations of the risk assessment and risk
management components of the overall health advisory program. See Section 5 in
this manual.
(5) Coordinate and collaborate with other credible sources.
a) Coordinate interorganizational and intraorganizational communication.
b) Devote effort and resources to building bridges with other organizations.
c) Issue information jointly with other trustworthy sources.
Institutional support for health advisory risk communication programs is critical for
program success. Health advisory programs often involve several agencies (e.g.,
health, environmental quality, fishery management) in the development and
dissemination of fish consumption recommendations. Additionally, potential fish
consumers (e.g., anglers, low income subsistence anglers, charter boat clients) are
often likely to consult an agency or organization not directly involved with the
establishment of the fish consumption recommendations with detailed questions
about the health advisory. In these cases, it is important for the lead agency, often
the health agency, to work closely with other government agencies and public or
private organizations to ensure those agencies and organizations have available the
best information possible regarding the health advisories.
For example, although the health agency may develop the fish consumption
recommendations, sport anglers often turn to the fishery management agency for
information and questions associated with health advisories. If fishery managers
are not familiar with health advisory program information and cannot respond to
information requests, a lack of trust in government by the angler may result. This
lack of trust may lead to a lack of faith in the fish consumption recommendations.
Similarly, agencies issuing health advisories may benefit from working outside of
similar government channels. For example, state health agencies may look beyond
other state agencies for communication program assistance. Other organizations,
such as Cooperative Extension (usually county-based), primary health care
providers (local), and local or regional social or religious organizations may be key
intermediaries for providing accurate health advisory information to specific target
audiences. See Section 5 in this manual for discussion of health advisory
dissemination.
Competing economic or philosophical interests may affect a health advisory risk
communication program adversely. For example, businesses that stand to be hurt
by negative attitudes associated with the healthfulness of fish (e.g., fishing charter
boats) may question and actively undermine the health advisory program,
attempting to portray a less risky fish consumption situation than that communicated
by the agency. Advocacy organizations (e.g., environmental quality interest
groups) may attempt to portray a more serious situation, either in the interest of
greater protection of human health based on selection of more conservative
acceptable risk criteria than those used by the agency, or in the interest of greater
public attention to environmental cleanup activities that could be generated by
-------
92
portraying a particular waterbody or fish population as being substantially
contaminated. These situations may demand a more aggressive risk communication
program, particularly with key audiences who may be more likely reached or
influenced by these other forces.
(6) Meet the needs of the media.
a) Be open and accessible to the media.
b) Provide risk information tailored to the needs of each type of media.
c) Provide background material on complex risk issues.
d) Follow up on coverage with praise and criticism as warranted.
e) Establish long-term relationships with specific editors and reporters.
See Section 5 in this manual for insights about working with the media related to
health advisory programs. Establishing long-term relationships is perhaps the most
important element of Rule 6. Such relationships are fostered through interactions
beyond health advisory programs — providing sound information to media staff for
a variety of issues, so they will be receptive to your health advisory information as
well as other media-worthy information you seek to share.
(7) Speak clearly and with compassion (or in the case of health advisories,
speak and write in this manner),
a) Use simple, non-technical language.
b) Use examples that make technical risk data come alive.
c) Avoid distant, abstract language about deaths and illnesses, and use risk
comparisons to help put risk in perspective.
d) Include a set of actions that are underway or can be taken to reduce the
risk.
Health advisory staff may benefit from developing a written set of responses to
commonly asked questions. Such a list may be posted by the telephone or carried
in a folder taken to public meetings. Responses should be in the words that would
really be used on the telephone or in person. Scripts developed in advance help
ensure important information is communicated each time a question is asked. See
Section 5 for example inquiry topics agencies may receive.
In the case of health advisories, avoid risk comparisons that are not relevant to the
target audience or to the risk involved. Comparisons of the risk of eating
contaminated fish with a risk such as that of being struck by lightning may be
irritating to your audience. Being struck by lightning can be viewed as an act of
nature or of a superior power, a situation over which an individual has little
control, and often resulting in a quick death. Consuming contaminated fish will not
result in a quick death, nor is fish consumption normally out of a person's control.
Comparing fish consumption risks with the risks of eating other protein sources, for
example, may be much more meaningful and persuasive to the intended audiences.
-------
93
See Section 5 in this manual (and Volume 3, Risk Management) for a discussion of
risk comparisons, and Section 7.1 for discussion of the distinctions made by the
public when evaluating risks.
Agencies following these cardinal rules in health advisory communication programs
can only enhance the trust and credibility assigned by the public.
7.2.2 Addressing uncertainty
Communicating the limitations and uncertainties associated with health advisory fish
consumption recommendations is a difficult issue to address. Very little empirical
evidence exists to suggest how agencies should explain that recommended fish
consumption limits are based on a process filled with interpretation and uncertainty.
Similarly, empirical support for the notion that agencies should communicate
uncertainty is also sparse.
Some public audiences perceive that fish consumption advice is scientific, infallible,
logical, and based on clear, uncontrovertible data. Others, however, recognize that
value judgments, human and technological error, and incomplete knowledge of
potential health effects may all be present in health advisory programs.
To address the general issue of communicating uncertainties associated with health
risks, a set of recommendations is scheduled to be developed by the Subcommittee
on Risk Communication and Education of the Public Health Service Committee to
Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs of the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services (USDHSS, 1993). Until those recommendations are
available, however, health advisory program planners should consider the following
ideas.
Hance et al. (1990) provided a series of guidelines to risk communicators working
in communities concerned with environmental hazards. The guidelines were basal
on a series of interviews with academic experts, agency staff, and others
knowledgeable about risk communication. Several of those recommendations are
pertinent to health advisory communication:
(1) Acknowledge uncertainty. The authors suggest that admitting your
uncertainty may enhance credibility and foster trust between the
agency and target audiences. They suggest saying "I don't know" is
one of the most important phrases a risk communicator can use.
(2) Provide background information about scientific uncertainties, and
stress the caution that is built into risk assessment and health
advisory recommendations. Background information may include
explaining uncertainty in scientific approaches in general, then
explaining the uncertainty in the methods used in the health advisory
program. Jim Colquhoun, New York State Department of
Conservation suggests:
We should communicate the idea that science does not
produce an immutable body of truth. Rather, science
produces the best current description of what we see, and any
unifying explanations that match our observations. When we
deal with human health, scientific uncertainty is the reason
for being careful. We can let the public hear that we are
-------
94
being conservative. That we don't communicate thoroughly
leads to a perpetuation of the myth that we know everything
about everything and eventually to a loss of credibility when
new information causes a change.
(3) Acknowledge the policy disagreements and health advisory program
changes that may arise from uncertainty. Assumptions in the risk
assessment and/or risk management components of health advisory
programs may change over time (see Volumes 2 and 3 in this series),
or vary among agencies. These changes may result in modified fish
consumption recommendations, creating the need for changes in
health advisory communication programs (see Example 7.1).
Communicators can explain why certain assumptions are needed in
these programs, and why they have changed. For example, fish
consumers should know if health advisory programs are designed to
protect the individual at most or least risk from eating contaminated
fish, or if worst-case or best-case assumptions were used. This
information can help a fish consumer begin to understand that a
range of risk values exists. The alternative is to encourage
perceptions that point-estimates of risk are realistic and certain. Such
perceptions lead to a loss of credibility when fish consumption
recommendations must change.
EXAMPLE 7.1 Statement acknowledging health advisory advice may change over
time (from Georgia 1994-1995 Sport Fishing Regulations guide).
Following are the current fish consumption advisories in Georgia freshwaters
when this publication went to press (February 1994). As results of fish tissue
sampling become available, fish consumption advisories may be changed. To
learn more about fish consumption advisories, contact your nearest Fisheries
Office.
There is no clear answer as to how much emphasis to place on explaining the
uncertainty in health advisory recommendations. Target audience assessment and
pretesting can help identify the potential effects of including this kind of
information in health advisory communication programs.
7.2.3 Personal vs. Professional (agency) responses
Staff within agencies involved in issuing health advisories are often in somewhat
regular contact with the public, and may be asked if they follow the consumption
limits recommended in the health advisory. Affirmative responses may reaffirm the
importance of the recommendations for the inquirer. Responses to the contrary,
however, may have the effect of undermining the intentions of the health advisory
program.
Agency staff can decline to answer questions about their personal behavior, but this
may not satisfy a persistent inquirer. Rather, staff can choose to answer such
questions honestly and completely. For example, if an individual eats more fish
than is recommended in the health advisory, the reasons for doing so should be
included in the answer (see Example 7.2).
-------
95
EXAMPLE 7.2 How do I answer the question "Do you eat fish in amounts
recommended in the advisory?".
I am more concerned about the risks of heart disease than of cancer, since heart
disease runs in my family. Because of my family medical history, and because I
like to fish, I choose to eat more fish than is recommended in the advisory. For
me, it's more important to gain the health benefits from eating fish than to avoid
the possible health risks of eating fish. For my children, though, I discourage
them from eating more fish than the advisory recommends, since they'll be
exposed to contaminants for many years to come. I feel it's best for them to
minimize the health problems that could be associated with eating contaminated
fish over a long lifetime.
The importance of this approach is acknowledging that every individual has the
right to make their own decision about fish consumption, but that ideally that
decision will be a well-informed one. It also acknowledges that health advisory
recommendations are developed on the basis of protecting certain groups in the
population, under certain assumptions.
Health advisory fish consumption recommendations may be modified if personal
circumstances or behavior do not fit with the assumptions used to develop the
recommendations. For example, some health advisories recommend that women of
childbearing age refrain from eating fish caught in potentially contaminated waters.
If, however, a woman is of childbearing age but not childbearing intention or
ability, the advice to refrain from eating fish may be unwarranted, and she can
safely consume fish within the general consumption recommendations.
-------
96
SECTION 8
REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED
Ajzen, I. 1989. Attitude structure and behavior. Pages 241-274 IN A.R.
Pratkanis, S.J. Breckler, and A.G. Greenwald, eds. Attitude Structure and
Function. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Anderson, H.A., J.F. Amrhein, P. Shubat, and J. Hesse. 1993. Protocol for a
uniform Great Lakes sport fish consumption advisory. Prepared for the
Great Lakes Fish Advisory Task Force, September, 1993.
Baird, B.N.R. 1986. Tolerance for environmental health risks: The influence of
knowledge, benefits, voluntariness, and environmental attitudes. Risk
Analysis. 6(4):
Basch, C.E. 1987. Focus group interview: An underutilized research technique
for improving theory and practice in health education. Health Education
Quarterly. 14(4): 411-448.
Chun, A. and A.R. Den. 1992. Public meeting: Typical questions and sample
responses. Office of the Regional Administrator. Office of the Senior
Science Advisor. EPA Region 9. San Francisco, California.
Connelly, N.A. and B.A. Knuth. 1993. Great Lakes Fish Consumption Health
Advisories: Angler Response to Advisories and Evaluation of
Communication Techniques. HDRU Series No. 93-3. Department of
Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. 108 pp.
Connelly, N.A., B.A. Knuth, and C.A. Bisogni. 1992. Effects of the Health
Advisory and Advisory Changes on Fishing Habits and Fish Consumption in
New York Sport Fisheries. HDRU Series No. 92-2. Department of Natural
Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. 120 pp.
Connelly, N.A., B.A. Knuth, and J.E. Vena. 1993. New York State Angler
Cohort Study: Health Advisory Knowledge and Related Attitudes and
Behavior, with a Focus on Lake Ontario. HDRU Series No. 93-9.
Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. 57 pp.
Covello, V.T. 1989. Communicating right-to-know information on chemical
risks. Environmental Science and Technology. 23(12): 1444-1449.
Cunningham, P.A., J.M. McCarthy, and D. Zeitlin. 1990. Results of the 1989
Census of State Fish/Shellfish Consumption Advisory Programs. Prepared
for Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Cunningham, P.A., S.L. Smith, J.P. Tippett, and A. Greene. 1994. A national
fish consumption advisory data base: A step toward consistency. Fisheries.
19(5): 14-23.
-------
97
Desvouges, W.H. and J.H. Frey. 1989. Integrating focus groups and surveys:
examples from environmental risk studies. Journal of Official Statistics.
5(4):349-363.
Desvouges, W.H. and V. K. Smith. 1988. Focus groups and risk communication:
The science of listening to data. Risk Analysis. 8(4): - .
Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method.
Wiley Interscience, Inc., New York. 325 pp.
Douglas, M. and A. Wildavsky. 1982. How can we know the risks we face?
Why risk selection is a social process. Risk Analysis. 2(2):49-57.
Hance, B.J., C. Chess, and P.M. Sandman. 1990. Improving Dialogue with
Communities: A Risk Communication Manual for Government. Division
of Science and Research. New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection. Trenton, NJ. 83 pp.
Knuth, B.A. 1990. Risk communication: A new dimension in sport-fishery
management. North American Journal of Fisheries Management.
10(4):374-381.
Knuth, B.A. and N.A. Connelly. 1991. Objectives and Evaluation Criteria for
Great Lakes Health Advisories: Perspectives from Fishery, Health, and
Environmental Quality Agencies. HDRU Series No. 91-11. Department of
Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. 21 pp.
Knuth, B.A., N.A. Connelly, and M.A. Shapiro. 1993. Angler Attitudes and
Behavior Associated with Ohio River Health Advisories. HDRU Series No.
93-6. Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
163 pp.
Merkhofer, M.W. 1987. Decision science and social risk management. D. Reidel
Publishing Co., Boston.
Miller, G.R. 1987. Persuasion. Pges 446-483 IN C.R. Berger and S.H. Chaffee,
eds. Handbook of Communication Science. Sage Publications, Newbury
Park, CA.
National Research Council. 1989. Improving Risk Communication. National
Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 332 pp.
Petty, R.E. and J.T. Cacioppo. 1981. Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and
Contemporary Approaches. William C. Brown, Inc., Dubuque, 10. 314
pp.
Reinert, R.E., B.A. Knuth, M.A. Kamrin, and Q.J. Stober. 1991. I^isk
assessment, risk management, and fish consumption advisories in the United
States. Fisheries. 16(6):5-12.
Sandman, P.M. 1987. Risk communication: Facing public outrage. EPA
Journal. 13(9):21-22.
-------
98
Scherer, C.W. 1991. Strategies for communicating risks to the public. Paper
presented at the Institute of Food Technologists Annual Meeting, Dallas,
Texas, June, 1991.
Slovic, P. 1987. Perception of risk. Science. 236:280-285.
Slovic, P., B. Fischoff, and S. Lichtenstein. 1982. Why study risk perception?
Risk Analysis. 2:83-93.
Sudman, S. and N.M. Bradburn. 1986. Asking Questions: A Practical Guide to
Questionnaire Design. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
Velicer, C.M. and B. A. Knuth. 1994. Communicating contaminant risks from
sport-caught fish: the importance of target audience assessment. Risk
Analysis. 14(5):in press.
USDHHS (United States Department of Health and Human Services), 1989.
Making Health Communication Programs Work. NIH Publication No. 80-
1493. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD.
USDHHS (United States Department of Health and Human Services), 1993.
Recommendations fo Improve Health Risk Communication. A Report on
Case Studies in Health Risk Communication. Public Health Service
Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. Washington, D.C.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 1990. Communicating
Environmental Risks. A Guide to Practical Evaluations. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA-230-01-91-001.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 1992a. Consumption
Surveys for Fish and Shellfish. A Review and Analysis of Survey Methods.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. EPA-822/R-
92-001.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 1992b. Seven Cardinal
Rules of Risk Communication. Developed by V. Covello and F. Allen.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. EPA-230-K-
92-001.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 1993. Guidance for
Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories. Volume
1: Fish Sampling and Analysis. Office of Science and Technology, Office
of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 1994. Guidance for
Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories. Volume
2: Risk Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits. Office of Science and
Technology, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington, D.C.
-------
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), in development.
Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish
Advisories. Volume 3: Risk Management. Office of Science and
Technology, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
-------
Summary of Health Advisory
Risk Communication Programs
in the United States
-------
A—2
Table A-l. Summaiy of origination of fish consumption health advisory programs in
U.S. states.8
State
First Advisorv Issued
Chemicals of Concern at Origination Date
Alabama
prior to 1989
b
Alaska
1994
P.S.P.
Arkansas
about 1978
chlordane, dioxin, PCBs
California
—
mercuiy
Colorado
mid 1970's
selenium
Connecticut
prior to 1988
Florida
1988
Georgia
1976
PCBs
Hawaii
late 1980's
lead
Illinois
1977-78
mercuiy, organochlorides, PCBs, pesticides
Indiana
1985
chlordane, PCBs
Iowa
1985
chlordane
Kansas
1986
chlordane
Kentucky
late 1980's
Louisiana
1978
pesticides
Maine
1985
dioxin
Maryland
1986
chlordane
Massachusetts
1982
Michigan
1970
mercury
Minnesota
1975
PCBs
Mississippi
1977
Missouri
1980
lead
Montana
1994
mercuiy
Nebraska
1990
chlordane, dieldrin, mercuiy, PCBs
Nevada
prior to 1989
mercury
New Jersey
1983
dioxin, PCBs
New Mexico
1970
mercury
New York
1977
North Carolina
1982
mercury, selenium
Ohio
1983
Oklahoma
late 1970's
Oregon
1987
mercury
Pennsylvania
1977
Rhode Island
1988
PCBs
South Carolina
1960's
mercury
Tennessee
1982
mercury
Texas
late 1970's
DDT, mercury, mirex, toxaphene
Utah
1988
selenium
Virginia
1977
—
Washington
1990
dioxin
-------
Table A-l. (continued).
State First Advisory Issued Chemicals of Concern at Origination Date
West Virginia 1980 mercuiy, PCBs
Wisconsin 1976 PCBs
Wyoming never
"States include those participating in telephone interview, 1994.
bDash indicates information not available.
-------
A-3
Table A-2. Summaiy of audiences targeted with fish consumption health advisory
information by U.S. states.
Type of Audience Targeted
Licensed sport anglers and/or
all anglers
States
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Contact Techniques Used
press releases; post signs at
waterbody; brochures mailed by
special request
press releases; brochures at state
offices, ferry terminals, Chambers
of Commerce, tourist attractions
press releases; signs at waterbody;
brochures distributed at points of
license sale
fishing regulations guide; press
releases
fishing regulations guide; signs at
waterbody
press releases; signs at waterbody
press releases; fishing regulations
guide, signs at waterbody
press releases, brochures at points of
license sale
press releases; fishing regulations
guide; small-group meetings in
local areas, especially for key
communicators such as marina
owners, bait and tackle shops,
environmental groups; signs at
waterbody
English-language signs at waterbody
fishing regulations guide; brochures
to local health departments and
available by request; signs at
waterbody; press releases about
specific sites of concern
press releases; fishing journals;
fishing regulations guide; brochures
via county health departments;
local environmental groups;
conservation officers in field
press releases, signs at waterbody
press releases; signs at waterbody;
fishing regulations guide; brochures
via local health departments
-------
A-4
Table A-2. (continued)
Type of Audience Targeted
States
Contact Techniques Used
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
press releases; signs at waterbody
press releases; signs at affected
waterbodies; brochures at state
offices and parish health units;
information mailed by special
requests; brochures distributed
at bait shops; articles in fishing
publications
fishing regulations guide; press
releases; brochures by special
request and to parks for visitors
press releases; sportfishing guides
fishing regulations guide; Cooperative
Extension Service pamphlets; press
releases
press releases; tourism industry
brochures via charterboat operators;
fishing regulations guide; advisory
booklets direct mail and distributed
to bait shops; fact sheets through
Cooperative Extension Service
press releases; signs at waterbody
press releases; fishing forecast
newsletters at tackle shops; 800-
number by telephone
fishing regulations guide; press
releases
signs at waterbody
brochures distributed through local
health departments, angler
associations, sporting goods stores,
bait and tackle shops; speakers at
organization meetings; signs at
waterbody
advisory brochures at fishing stores
and information outlets; press
releases
fishing regulations guide; advisory
brochures by request; tip strips
for local areas; press releases;
letters to local governments and
community associations
-------
A-5
Table A-2. (continued)
Type of Audience Targeted
States
Contact Techniques Used
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Agency staff
Massachusetts
Minnesota
fishing regulations guide
press releases; brochures and fact
sheets to local health departments;
fishing regulations guide; site-
specific fact sheets via mailing lists
(e.g., Superfund sites)
press releases; brochures at entrances
to parks, refuges; television
programs on fish and wildlife
press releases; fishing regulations
guide; signs at waterbody
press releases; fishing regulations
guide
press releases; fact sheets to local
health departments; closed circuit
teleconferences; signs at waterbody
press releases; brochures by request;
fishing regulations guide; signs at
waterbody; public meetings in local
areas
brochures by request; fishing
regulations guide; signs at
waterbody
press releases; notices at fishing
license outlets and sporting goods
stores; signs at waterbody
press releases; fishing regulations
guide
press releases; signs at waterbody
press releases; brochures by request
press releases; advisoiy booklets to
local health departments, county
clerks, libraries, charterboat
captains
letters, telephone calls to
environmental protection and
fish and wildlife management staffs;
local Boards of Health
brochures and training for parks
staff, local health departments
-------
A-6
Table A-2. (continued)
Type of Audience Targeted
Children
Environmental groups
Ethnic anglers
States
Arkansas
Louisiana
Minnesota
Montana
New Jersey
New York
Tennessee
Texas
Indiana
Louisiana
Minnesota
New Jersey
California
Massachusetts
Minnesota
New Jersey
Oregon
Contact Techniques Used
brochures distributed by county
health departments
meetings and brochures at local
junior high schools; slide
presentations
brochures and fact sheets to schools
and libraries, environmental
education programs
press releases
brochures distributed at schools
tip strips directed toward Women,
Infant, and Children federal/state
aid programs; contacts and
brochures with childbirth educators,
medical professional associations
public meetings in local areas;
brochures to local health
departments; signs at waterbody
brochures and programs at specific
sites
mailed materials; presentations at
meetings
press releases; articles in environ-
mental publications; group presen-
tations; brochures in state offices
brochures and fact sheets
brochures
fishing groups; local neighborhood
organizations
brochures in multilingual format via
local health departments and local
community groups
brochures and meetings through
social/cultural support organiza-
tions, Indian reservations; multi-
lingual materials
brochures translated and distributed
by local churches
multilingual brochures and handouts
to local health departments and
clinics
-------
A-7
Table A-2. (continued)
Type of Audience Targeted States
Rhode Island
Washington
Wisconsin
Families of anglers Connecticut
Kentucky
Nevada
General public Arkansas
Colorado
Connecticut
Hawaii
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Contact Techniques Used
information at fish markets; foreign
language newspapers
signs at waterbody in native language
for population of concern
multilingual, targeted brochures and
maps
press releases; fishing regulations
guide; signs at waterbody
press releases; signs at waterbody
no method developed
press releases
press releases
press releases
press releases
signs at waterbody
press releases; signs at waterbody;
public meetings when advisory is
issued; brochures distributed at
public meetings and bait shops and
by parish health departments
press releases
press releases
press releases; Missouri
Conservationist, 800-number by
telephone
press releases
press releases
brochures
press releases
press releases
brochures by request
press releases
press releases
press releases
press releases
press releases
-------
A-8
Table A-2. (continued)
Type of Audience Targeted
Physicians
Subsistence anglers
States
Louisiana
Alaska
Arkansas
California
Georgia
Illinois
Louisiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
New Jersey
New Mexico
Contact Techniques Used
articles in physician's magazines;
direct mailings; training course in
environmental health effects
press releases; brochures at state
offices, feriy terminals, Chambers
of Commerce, tourist attractions
fishing regulations guide; press
releases; target local areas and
information
fishing regulations guide; signs at
waterbody
press releases; fishing regulations
guide; small-group meetings in
local areas, especially for key
communicators such as marina
owners, bait and tackle shops,
environmental groups; signs at
waterbody
fishing regulations guide; brochures
to local health departments and
available by request; signs at
waterbody; press releases about
specific sites of concern
press releases; signs at waterbody;
public meetings when advisory is
issued; brochures distributed at
public meetings and bait shops and
by parish health departments
signs at waterbody; legislator's
constituent newsletters; church
newsletters
brochures and fact sheets via local
community support organizations
press releases; signs at waterbody;
brochures by special request
brochures distributed by local health
departments and community groups
brochures at information outlets;
town meetings in at-risk areas
-------
A-9
Table A-2. (continued)
Type of Audience Targeted . States
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Women of reproductive age Alabama
Arkansas
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Louisiana
Michigan
Contact Techniques Used
public service announcements; public
meetings at advisory sites; simplified
fact sheets; press releases
press releases; closed circuit tele-
conferences; brochures to local
health departments; signs at
waterbody
public meetings at local sites; signs
at waterbody; brochures to local
health departments
press releases; post signs at
waterbody; brochures mailed at
special request
brochures distributed by county
health departments to nursing
mothers
press releases; fishing regulations
guide; post signs at waterbody
press releases; brochures at point-
of-license sale
press releases; fishing regulations
guide; small-group meetings in
local areas, especially for key
communicators such as marina
owners, bait and tackle shops,
environmental groups; signs at
waterbody
press releases; signs at waterbody;
public meetings when advisory is
issued; brochures distributed at
public meetings and bait shops
and by parish health departments
fishing regulations guide; press
releases; brochures at health
clinics and Women, Infant, and
Children federal/state aid
programs; contacts and brochures
with childbirth educators, medical
professional associations.
-------
A-10
Table A-2. (continued)
Type of Audience Targeted
States
Contact Techniques Used
Minnesota brochures through health informa-
perinatal health care providers
Montana press releases
New Jersey brochures to expectant mothers by
public health staff at prenatal
clinics and programs
New York brochures by request; fishing
regulations guide; press releases;
tip strips to Women, Infant, and
Children federal/state aid
programs
South Carolina brochures and copies of press
releases to Women, Infant, and
Children federal/state aid
programs
Tennessee brochures to local health depart-
ments; fishing regulations guide;
press releases; public meetings
at local sites
West Virginia press releases
-------
A-ll
Table A-3. Summary of state efforts to evaluate the effectiveness of fish consumption
health advisory communication programs.
State
Evaluation Efforts
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Jersey
New Mexico
no formal program; Auburn University involved in a fish
consumption study
no formal program
no formal program
no formal program
no formal program
no formal program
no formal program; unsolicited telephone calls
no formal program
focus group evaluation at beginning of new health advisory process
no formal program
no formal program
no formal program
no formal program
informal feedback
no formal program; Cornell University Ohio River Basin advisory
communication study
no formal program; state university may conduct a risk
communication and blood epidemiology study
no formal program
no formal program
no formal program; study completed on local (New Bedford) fish
consumption
Clean Water Action Survey by citizen's group; Cornell University
study on Great Lakes Basin in-house staff regularly assess
program; MI environmental science board has been involved;
informal feedback
Advisory committee of public and expert members; focus groups;
public meetings on related topics; tear-out sheet return form from
health advisory booklet; informal feedback
no formal program
informal feedback
no formal program
compare with other states; correspond with USEPA; no formal
program; University medical school assessed human levels of
contaminants
in-house survey of health officers and environmental organizations
to determine which communication methods are successful
on-site visits with anglers; follow-up questionnaires
-------
A-12
Table A-3. (continued)
State Evaluation Efforts
New York periodic assessment by consumer health information advisory
council; Cornell University studies of advisoiy awareness and
related behaviors
North Carolina
informal feedback
Ohio
no formal program; Cornell University study on Ohio River Basin
advisoiy awareness
Oklahoma
no formal program
Oregon
informal feedback
Pennsylvania
no formal program
Rhode Island
no formal program
South Carolina
no formal program; wildlife management department has assessed
advisoiy knowledge when creel surveys are conducted
Tennessee
no formal program
Texas
no formal program
Utah
no formal program
Virginia
no formal program
Washington
no formal program
West Virginia
survey appropriate constituencies
Wisconsin
advisory awareness has been assessed
-------
APPENDIX B
Examples of Health Advisory Risk Communication Program Documents, with
appendix page number.
NOTE: These items are included as examples only. Inclusion of these materials does
not constitute an endorsement of the content by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
1. Example communication strategy for health advisory program, Michigan
Department of Public Health, 1990. (B-4)
2. Anderson et al., 1993, September; Draft Uniform Advisory Protocol for the
Great Lakes (see especially for fish cleaning diagram, tables of
consumption recommendations, description of how to use the advisory).
(B-8)
3. New York State Health Advisory, 1994-1995 (see especially for list of advice on
many ways to reduce exposure to contaminants from fish, feedback form,
and descriptions of contaminants in fish). (B-13)
4. Oregon Health Division Mercury Fact Sheet, 1994. (see for description of
contaminant and health effects). (B-28)
5. Black-and-white version of a color map used by Wisconsin with the Hmong
community (see for minimal use of written word to convey fish
consumption message). (B-30)
6. Excerpt from Georgia 1994-1995 Sport Fishing Regulations guide, illustrating
the health advisory (see especially for direct list of tips on how to reduce
your health risk). (B-31)
7. Minnesota Department of Health health advisory program materials, 1991 -
1994.
a) Fish Facts: Contaminants in Minnesota Fish (see especially for
comparison of Minnesota with other states). (B-33)
b) Fish Facts: Eating Minnesota Fish: Health Risks and Benefits (see
especially for description of health risks and health benefits of fish
consumption). (B-35)
c) Fish Facts: Methylmercury in Fish (see as an example of special fact
sheet on a specific contaminant). (B-37)
d) Fish Facts: Mercury in the Environment (see as an example of a fact
sheet intended for professionals in health, environment, and natural
resources, as well as the interested public). (B-39)
e) Fish Facts: Contaminants in Lake Superior Fish (see especially for use
of graphics to depict contamination levels). (B-41)
f) Lake Superior Fish Advisory (see especially for special advice for special
risk groups, and cleaning and cooking advice). (B-43)
-------
g) An Expectant Mother's Guide to Eating Minnesota Fish. What You
Should Know if You Are Pregnant, Planning to be Pregnant,
Nursing a Baby (see for advice for women of childbearing age). (B-
47)
h) Which Fish Are Safe To Eat? (targeted for anglers fishing in urban
areas', see for use of simplified English and line drawings offish).
(B-51)
i) Cov Ntses Twg Thiaj Zoo Noj? (Hmong version of "Which Fish Are
Safe To Eat?"). (B-53)
j) Do You Like To Fish? (for anglers in metropolitan area, in simplified
English). (B-55)
k) Koj Puas Nyiam Nuv Ntses? (Hmong version of "Do You Like To
Fish?"). (B-56)
1) Eating Minnesota Fish: A Guide To Your Health (itourism-oriented
brochure for the angler fishing anywhere in Minnesota). (B-57)
m) Are You Eating Safe Fish? (poster in Hmong, Cambodian, Vietnamese,
Laotian, and English used in health care clinics serving immigrant
populations). (B-59)
n) Fish And Your Health. Environmental Exposure To PCBs In Fish. Are
Your Patients At Risk? (flyer targeted to health care professionals).
(B-60)
o) Fish And Your Health. Fishing In Minneapolis and St. Paul (see for
simplified English, description of safe vs. unsafe fish to eat, use of
diagrams offish, and fish-cleaning diagram). (B-62)
p) Fish And Your Health {Cambodian version). (B-64)
q) Tear-out survey from health advisory brochure to provide evaluation
data. (B-66)
8. Excerpt from 1994 Minnesota Fishing Regulations, fish consumption advisory
(see especially description of chemicals of concern, tips on reducing risk).
(B-68)
9. Draft Guidelines for Eating Fish From Georgia Waters, 1994. (see especially
for description of benefits of fishing and eating fish, discussion of state
programs on fish contamination, description of health risks, comparison of
Georgia waters with other states, and fish consumption charts). (B-69)
10. A Fishing Advisory for Arkansas, 1993 (see especially for use of map with
advisory locations, and table advising consumption of predators and non-
predators). (B-76)
-------
11. Press release from Kansas Department of Health and Environment (see
especially for background information included with short news release).
(B-77)
12. News release, Missouri Department of Health (see especially for use of map
showing health advisory locations). (B-85)
13. Posted warning from the Alabama Department of Public Health, 1993. (B-89)
14. Example of posted notice allowing catch and release fishing on a local pond,
Kansas (Johnson County Park and Recreation District). (B-90)
15. Example of posted health warning, Michigan Department of Public Health.
(B-91)
16. Example posted health warning, Kentucky Department for Environmental
Protection, 1993. (B-92)
17. Posted multilingual fish consumption warning, Massachusetts Department of
Public Health, 1993. (B-93)
18. Posted warning, Oregon Health Division, English and Spanish versions (see
especially for clear advice to special risk groups, and cooperation with
local health department). (B-94)
19. Example outdoors magazine article, "Should You Eat Your Michigan Sport
Fish?", Michigan Out of Doors, 1990. (B-96)
20. Example outdoors magazine article, "Are there toxic chemicals in the fish
you're eating?", Louisiana Sportsman, 1994 (B-98).
21. Example local advisory brochure, "Should My Family Eat Fish Caught in
Local Waters?", New York, 1994. (B-100)
22. Example advisory information cards for local waters, South Carolina, 1994.
(B-102)
-------
B-4
COMMUNICATION" STRATEGY FOR 1991 SPORTS FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORY
Interagency Center on Health, and Environmental Quality
Michigan Department of Public Health
November, 1990
RATIONALE
In previous years, the Michigan Department of Public Health
(DPH) has relied almost exclusively on the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) Michigan Fishing Guide publication to convey its
message on fish consumption advice. The brochure is typically
given out at the time a fishing license is purchased.
Both internal and external advisors to the Michigan Department
of Public Health agree that the state may not be reaching all
intended audiences and; that the format, length and style of past
advisories is not one accessible to nne general public.
Furthermore, MDPH is not recognized as the source of the message.
There is a need to revise the format, to target subgroups of"
the population at greatest potential risk from eating Michigan
sports fish and to make the advisory more easily read. The State
Health Director has approved a new approach and ICHEQ is now
embarking on a pilot project for 1991, with hopes of expanding the
program in 1992 and beyond, with joint efforts"from the Center for
Health Promotion and the Office of Minority Health.
OBJECTIVES
(1) To increase the level of awareness of the existence of
Michigan's Sports Fish Consumption. Advisories.
(2) To raise the level of awareness of the hazards and
benefits of eating Great Lakes fish and inland lakes
fish.
(3) To communicate the fish consumption advice in an easily
understood manner to those people who eat sports fish
from Michigan.
(4) To promote awareness of the proper methods of preparing
and cooking fish to reduce certain contaminants.
(5) To target those subgroups of the peculation at the
greatest risk from exposure to contaminants in sports
fish in Michigan contrary to the advisory.
(6) To continue to provide information to the fish license
buying public.
TARGET GROUPS
(1) Women of child-bearing age and young ohildren
(2) Minority Groups (Detroit area, selec.sd for pilot effort)
(3) School age children; K-8th grade
(4) Traditional anglers
-------
B-5
ACTION PLAN
I. Reaching women of child-bearing age and young children
(1) Create a pamphlet to highlight message that there is
special concern for this population group when consuming
sports fish in certain Michigan waters and that
precautions need to be taken. Should have attractive
graphics/pictures, (50,000 copies: approximate cost
$2,250.00)
(2) Distribution points': look to established networks to
distribute pamphlets
a. State-wide child birthing organizations
b. Local health departments
C. MSMS
d. Saginaw child birthing class (pilot) (3,000)
e. Use UAW locals/magazine to distribute pamphlets and
message.
f. Reach child birthing educators with information and
perhaps a poster: incorporate fish eating advice
into classes.
g. wic Clinics
II. Reaching Minority Groups
(1) Develop pamphlet to target the Detroit area, lower-
income, minority population (50,000 copies: approximate
cost $2,250.00)
(2) Place "Healthy Choices" articles in MUCC publications
and the Michigan Chronicle; perhaps they would run
advisory information in a later edition.
(3.) Work through Detroit area legislators to distribute
information and pamphlets on fish eating advice through
their newsletters and meetings in the District.
(4) Coordinate with the project underway in Southwest
Detroit (Bunyan Bryant) to disseminate pamphlets
(5) Try to contact umbrella church groups to disseminate
information within their network
(6) Work with WIC program
(7) Distribute posters to grocery chains in Detroit area for
posting in entry way, e.g.. Parmer Jacks, Great Scott
(approximate cost for posters: $200 for 500 copies)
(8) Local Health Departments
III. Reaching School Age Children
(1) Work through existing curriculum in Michigan Model, K-
8th grade, target 5th grade.
a. provide information packets and posters for teachers
b. provide activity sheet for students to take home to
parents and to interact with them at no cost to
ICHEQ.
IV. Reaching Traditional Anglers
(1) Continue to use the Michigan Fishing Guide
-------
B-6
a. reduce to 3/4 page ($1,000.00)
b. negotiate for placement on inside cover
c. enlarge print
d. easy to follow format, deleting listing of specific
waterbodies
e. provide toll-free number for more detailed
information
f. develop actual fishing guide language
(2) Pre-recorded tape to tie into 800 number
a. tie into existing 800 number, investigate options
for pre-recorded message and personal answering
b. three-minute tape, gives Great Lakes advisory in
detail and specific inland lake advisories; provides
24-hour coverage (cost unknown)
(3) Develop pamphlet that will be sent after 800 call
contacts, this will be the broadest based pamphlet of
those being proposed, similar to what was done in 1987.
Language will be modified to reduce reading level of
•information. (50,000 copies: approximate cost
$2,250.00)
(4) Develop a • fishing license sticker/stamp to- alert people
to the existence of a fish consumption advisory. Either
piggyback on the printing that the DNR is doing, or work
through a major license outlet such as Meijer which
prints its own jacket for the license, (cost unknown-)
(5) Press releases to all major news media, statewide and
solicit coverage in sports magazine.
PROPOSED TIMELINE
12/14: (Friday): Deadline for text copy to DNR (will hit sports
shows in January)
Beginning of February: Finalize pamphlet for general distribution
Beginning of March: Finalize pamphlets for targeted populations
Finalize posters
First of March: Licenses become available at outlets
First of April: Kick-off of fishing season with steelhead season
End of April: Fishing season gets into full swing
MATERIALS & INFORMATION DEVELOPMENT
Three pamphlets
a. general, broad-based
b. women
c. minorities
Posters (only one to be used in connection with all four target
groups)
Fishing guide language
Press release
Activity Sheet
-------
B-7
Pre-recorded tape for 800 line
Emblem/stamp for fishing licenses
Magazine articles on Healthy Choices
PROGRAM MEASUREMENT
1. Monitor hotline calls for detailed pamphlet or tape recording
2. Pre- and post- surveying of a small group: e.g. as Wendy
Silverman did in her thesis, walk up and down an urban river
and ask people who are fishing there (perhaps graduate student
proj ect)
3. Work with child birth classes to survey their participants.
4. Get fishing license list-random sample
5. Michigan model survey
-------
B-8
Protocol
for a
Uniform Great Lakes Sport Fish
Consumption Advisory
Great Lakes Fish Advisory Task Force
Protocol Drafting Committee
Henry A. Anderson, MD
Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services
James F. Amrhein
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Pam Shubat
Minnesota Department of Health
John Hesse
Michigan Department of Public Health
September 1993
-------
B-9
A Guide to Your Health
Fish are nutritious and good to eat But some fish may take in contaminants from the water they
live in and the food they eat Some of these contaminants build up in the fish - and you - over
time. These contaminants could harm the people who eat them, so it is important to keep your
exposure to these contaminants as low as possible. This advisory helps you plan what fish to keep
as well as how often and how much sport fish to eat This advisory is not intended to discourage
you from eating fish, but should be used as a guide to eating fish low in contaminants.
Health Benefits
When properly prepared, fish provide a diet high in protein and low in saturated fats. Many
doctors suggest that eating a half-pound of fish each week is helpful in preventing heart disease.
Almost any kind of fish may have real health benefits when it replaces a high-fat source of
protein in the diet You can get the health benefits of fish and reduce unwanted contaminants by
following this advisory.
Contaminants In Fish
Long lasting contaminants such as PCBs, DDT, and mercury build up in your body over time. It
may take months or years of regularly eating contaminated fish to build up «moi?nts'which axe %•
wealth concern. Health problems which may'result from the contaminants found in fish range
from small changes in health that are hard to detect to birth defects and cancer. Mothers iriio
eat highly contaminated fish for many years before becoming pregnant may have chfldren who are
slower to develop and learn. The meal advice in this advisory is intended to protect children Gram
these potential developmental problems. Adults are less likely to have health problems at the low
levels that affect children.
Although the advisory is primarily based on effects other than cancer, some contaminants cause
cancer in animals. Your risk of cancer from eating contaminated fish cannot be predicted with
certainty. Cancer currently affects about one in every four people by the age of 70; primarily due
to smoking, diet and hereditary risk factors. Exposure to contaminants in the fish you eat may
not increase your cancer risk at all. If you follow this advisoiy over your lifetime, you wilt
minimize your exposure and reduce whatever cancer risk is associated with those contaminants.
At worst using Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) methods, it is estimated that
approximately one additional cancer case may develop in 10,000 people eating contaminated fish
over their lifetime.
16
-------
B-10
How to Use This Advisory
Measure your fish from the tip of the nose to the end of the tail. Find the location, species and
size of fish you've caught in the tables that follow. The tables show each kind of fish which has
been tested for contaminants. If a species is not listed, it has not been tested.
At the top of the tables, find the meal advice for the size fish you've caught "No Restrictions"
means you can eat as many meals as you like. "Do Not Eat" means no one should eat those fish
because of very high contamination. The other three groups ("One Meal a Week", "One Meal a
Month", "One Meal Every Two Months") are advice for how often to eat a fish meal. The
amount of contaminants in a fish listed in the "One Meal a Month" group is four times higher
than the amount of contaminants in a fish listed in the "One Meal a Week" group.
People who regularly eat sport fish, women of childbearing age, and children, are particularly
susceptible to contaminants that build up over time. If you fall into one of these categories, you
should be especially careful to space fish meals out according to the advisory table that follows.
Your body can get rid of some contaminants, such as mercury, over time. Spacing the meals out
helps prevent the contaminants from building up to harmful levels in the body. For example, if
the fish you eat is in the "One Meal a Month Group", wait a month before eating another meal of
fish from any restricted category.
Women beyond their childbearing years and mep face fewer health risks from contaminants such
££ niercuxy. However, if you are in this group you should also follow the advisory to reduce your
total exposure to contaminants. For these groups, it is the total number of meals that you eat
during the year that becomes important and many of those meals can be eaten during a few
months of the year. If most of the fish you eat are from the "One Meal a Week" category, you
should not exceed 52 meals per year, likewise, if most of the fish you eat are in the "One Meal a
Month" category, you should not exceed 12 meals per year. Remember, eating one meal of fish
from the "One Meal a Month" group is comparable to eating four fish meals from the "One Meal
a Week Group".
One meal is assumed to be one-half pound of fish (weight before cooking) for a 150 pound
person. This meal advice is equally protective for larger people who eat larger meals, and smaller
people who eat smaller meals.
17
-------
B-LL
Cleaning and Cooking Your fish
Many contaminants are found at higher levels in the fat of fish. You can reduce the amount of
these contaminants in a fish meal by property trimming, skinning, and cooking your catch.
Remove the skin and trim all the fat from the areas shown on the diagram below: the belly flap,
the line along the sides of the fish, fat along the back, and under the skin.
along the entire length of the fillet
Cooking does not destroy contaminants In fish, but heat from cooking melts some of the fat in
fish and allows some of the contaminated fat to drip away. Broil, grill, or bake the trimmed,
skinned fish on a tack so the fat drips away. Do not use the drippings to prepare sauces or
gravies.
These precautions wifl not reduce the amount of mercury or other metals. Mercury Is distributed
throughout a fish's muscle tissue (the part you eat) rather than in the fat and skin. Therefore,
the only way to reduce mercury intake is to reduce the amount of contaminated fish you eat
IMPORTANT: You must follow these cleaning and cooking directions.
The meal advice that follows is for eating trimmed and skinned fish.
Remove all skin
Cut away all fat
along the back
Slice off the belly fat
18
-------
B-12
Task Force Proposed
Meal Advice for Eating Sport Fish from Lake Huron
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Fish
No
Restrictions
One Meal a
Week (52
meals/year)
One Meal a
Month (12
meals/year)
One Meal
every 2
Months (6
meals/year)
Do NOT
Eat
Chinook
Salmon
<32"
> 32"
Coho
Salmon
All Sizes
Brown Trout
<22"
> 22"
I
Lake Trout
<25"
> 25"
Rainbow
Trout
All Sizes
Burbot
<20"
>20"
Walleye
<21"
>21"
| Saginaw Bay (also follow Lake Huron advisories for species not listed below)
Carp
< 23"
> 23"
Catfish
< 15"
15 - 21"
>21"
Walleye
< 16"
> 16"
Yellow
Perch
< 8"
> 8"
White
Sucker
< 15"
> 15"
Thunder Bay (also follow Lake Huron advisories for species not listed below)
Carp
All Sizes
NOTE: This is a DRAFT advisory table proposed by the Task Force. Categories for specific fish
are subject to change as new data becomes available.
23
-------
B-13
Health Advisory
•/
CHEMICALS IN
SPORTFISH AND GAME
Center for Environmental Health 2 University Place Albany, New York 12203-3399
-------
B-14
NYS Department of Health
1994-1995 Health Advisories: Chemicals in Sportfish or Game
Summary
The New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) routinely
monitors contaminant levels in fish and wildlife.
The New York State Department of Health
(DOH) issues advisories on eating sportfish
and wildlife because some of these foods
contain chemicals at levels which may be
harmful to your health. The health advisories
are: (1) general advice on sportfish taken from
waters in New York State; (2) advice on
sportfish from specific waterbodies; and (3)
advice on wildlife. The advisories are
developed and updated yearly.
Background
Fish and wildlife are nutritious and good to
eat But some fish may take in contaminants
from the water they live In and the food they
eat Wildlife, too, may take in contaminants
from their food and water. Some of these
contaminants build up in fish and wildlife-and
you-over time. These contaminants could
harm people, so it Is important to keep your
exposure to these contaminants as low as
possible. This advisory helps you plan what
fish and wildlife to keep as well as how often
and how much to eat. This advisory is not
intended to discourage you from eating fish or
wildlife, but should be used as a guide to
minimize your exposure to contaminants.
Health Benefits
When properly prepared, fish provide a diet
high in protein and low in saturated fate.
Almost any kind of fish may have real health
benefits when it replaces a high-fat source of
protein in the diet. You can get the health
benefits of fish and reduce unwanted
contaminants by following this advisory.
Contaminants In Fish and Wildlife
Long-lasting contaminants, such as PCBs,
DDT and mercury, build up in your body over
time. It may take months or years of regularly
eating contaminated fish to build up amounts
which are a health concern. Health problems
which may result from the contaminants found
in fish range from small changes in health that
are hard to detect to birth defects and cancer.
Mothers who eat highly contaminated fish and
wildlife for many years before becoming
pregnant may have children who are slower to
develop and learn. The meal advice in this
advisory is intended to protect children from
these potential developmental problems.
Adults are less likely to have health problems
at the low levels that affect children.
Some contaminants cause cancer in
animals. Your risk of cancer from eating
contaminated fish and wildlife cannot be
predicted with certainty. Cancer currently
affects about one in every three people;
primarily due to smoking, diet and hereditary
risk factors. Exposure to contaminants in the
fish and wildlife you eat may not increase your
cancer risk at all. If you follow this advisory
over your lifetime, you will minimize your
exposure and reduce whatever cancer risk is
associated with these contaminants.
The federal government establishes
standards for chemical residues in food. When
establishing these standards for fish, the
federal government assumes that people eat
about one-half pound of fish each month. The
contaminant levels are measured in a skin-on
fillet which has not been trimmed; this sample
is used in determining whether or not the fish
exceeds standards. Fish and wildlife cannot
be legally sold if they contain a contaminant at
a level greater than its standard. When
sportfish from a waterbody contain
contaminants at levels greater than the federal
standards, the DOH issues a specific advisory.
General Advisory
The general health advisory for sportfish is
that you eat no more than one meal (one-half
pound) per week of fish taken from the state's
-------
freshwaters, the Hudson River estuary, or the
New York City harbor area (the New York
waters of the Hudson River including Upper
and Lower Bays, Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull,
Harlem River, and the East River to the Throgs
Neck Bridge). This general advisory is to
protect against eating large amounts of fish that
havent been tested or contain unidentified
contaminants. The general advisory does not
apply to fish taken from marine waters. Ocean
fish, although less tested, are generally less
contaminated than freshwater fish. In addition,
fish that live further out from shore may be less
contaminated than those that live close to the
shore.
Specific Freshwater Advisories
Over 50 waterbodies in New York have fish
with contaminant levels that are greater than
federal standards and have their qwn
advisories. The DOH recommendations
suggest either limiting or avoiding eating a
specific kind of fish from a particular body of
water. In some cases, enough Information is
available to issue advisories based on the
length of the fish. Older (larger) fish are often
more contaminated than younger (smaller) fish.
Health advice is also given for infants,
children under the aae of fifteen and women
of chiidbearina aae. The DOH recommends
that they not eat any fish species from the
specific waterbodies listed in the advisory. The
reason for this specific advice is that chemicals
may have a greater impact on developing
organs in young children or in the fetus. They
also build up in women's bodies and are often
passed on in mother's milk. Waters which have
specific advisories have at least one species
of fish with an elevated contaminant level,
which means that a contamination source is in
or near the water.
People who regularly eat sportfish, women
of childbearing age and children, are
particularly susceptible to contaminants that
build up over time. If you fall into one of these
categories, you should consider if you need to
B-15
space fish meals out according to the advisory^ s;:ir
table that follows. Your body can get rid of
some contaminants, such as mercury, over
time. Spacing the meals out helps prevent
some of the contaminants from building up to
harmful levels in the body.
Women beyond their childbearing years
and men race fewer nealth risks from
contaminants such as mercury. However, if
you are in this group you should also follow the
advisory to reduce your total exposure to
contaminants. For these groups, it is the total
number of meals that you eat during the year
that becomes important and many of those
meals can be eaten during a few months of the
year. If most of the fish you eat are from the
"One Meal a Week" category, you should not
exceed 52 meals per year. Likewise, if most
of the fish you eat are in the "One Meal a
Month" category, you should not exceed 12
meals per year. Remember, eating one meal
of fish from the "One Meal a Month" group is
comparable to eating four meals from the "One
Meal a Week" group.
The primary contaminants (mercury,
cadmium, PCBs, chlordane, dioxin, DDT and
mirex) are listed next to each advisory. You
should review the advisories together if you eat
fish from more than one waterbody. For
example, if you eat a meal of Saw Mill River
carp, you should not eat American eel from
Kinderhook Lake for the rest of that month
since both of these fish species have eat no
more than one meal oer month advisories and
both are based on PCB contamination.
Marine Waters
The DOH issues specific advisories for
marine waters. These apply to striped bass,
bluefish, and American eels and are the only
marine fish advisories in effect Striped bass,
bluefish, and eels have specific habits or
characteristics which make them more likely to
have contaminants than other marine species.
2
-------
B-16
Remove all skin
" __
Cut away a V-shaped wedge
to remove the dark fatty tissue
along the entire length of the fillet
Cut away all fat
along the back
Slice off the belly fat
An advisory has been issued for striped bass
because of PCB contamination. Saltwater fish
are generally less contaminated than
freshwater fish. However, fish like striped bass
which spend time in Hudson River waters can
be contaminated at levels above food
standards. The advisory for striped bass is
divided into three geographical areas. For
striped bass taken from the Hudson River from
the Federal Dam at Troy south to the bridge
at CatsWII, the DOH recommends against any
consumption. For striped bass from the
Hudson River from the bridge at Catskill south
to and including the lower New York Harbor
and Long Island Sound west of Wading River,
the advisory is to eat no more than one meal
per month. The general advisory applies to
striped bass from eastern Long Island Sound,
the Peconic/Gardinens Bays and Long Island
South'Shore waters. Women of childbearing
age, infants and children under fifteen should
not eat striped bass from the Hudson River,
lower New York Harbor, or western Long Island
Sound.
The DOH has extended the general
advisory to bluefish and American eels. They
are contaminated with PCBs, although to a
lesser extent than striped bass from the
Hudson River, New York Harbor, and western
Long Island Sound. The recommendation for
bluefish and American eels caught in New York
State's marine waters is to eat no more than
one meal (one-half pound) per week, with
additional recommendations to not eat
American eels from the Harlem or East Rivers
and eat no more than one meal per month of
American eels from the Hudson River or New
York City harbor area.
Cleaning and Cooking Your Fish
Many contaminants are found at higher
levels in the fat of fish. You can reduce the
amount of these contaminants in a fish meal
by property trimming, skinning and cooking
your catch. Remove the skin and trim all the
fat from the areas shown on the DIAGRAM
ABOVE: the belly flap, the line along the sides,
the fat along the back and under the skin.
Cooking does not destroy contaminants
in fish, but heat from cooking melts some of
the fat in fish and allows some of the
contaminated fat to drip away. Broil, grill or
bake the trimmed, skinned fish on a rack so
that the fat drips away. Do hot use drippings
to prepare sauces or gravies.
These precautions will not reduce the
amount of mercury or other metals. Mercury
is distributed throughout a fish's muscle tissue
(the part you eat), rather than in the fat and
skin. Therefore, the only way to reduce
mercury intake is to reduce the amount of
contaminated fish you eat
Other Advisories
The DOH also issues special, advisories for
crabs in the Hudson River due to cadmium and
PCB contamination and for snapping turtles
and waterfowl statewide because they contain
PCBs and other contaminants. Cooking
methods are recommended thai minimize the
3
-------
B—17
amount of contaminants which would be eaten.
The complete advisory is at the end of this
brochure.
The health implications of eating deformed
or cancerous fish are unknown. Any obviously
diseased fish (marked by tumors, lesions or
other abnormal condition of the fish skin, meat
or internal organs) should be discarded.
Shellfish
All foods of animal origin, such as meat,
poultry, seafood and dairy products, should be
thoroughly cooked before eaten. The DOH
specifically recommends that the public not eat
raw or partially cooked clams or oysters. This
advice is not because of chemical
contamination. Raw or partially cooked
shellfish illegally harvested from waters
contaminated with sewage have been linked to
gastrointestinal illness and hepatitis A, caused
by bacteria or viruses.
Should I Be Concerned About
Medical-type Waste and Garbage
Affecting Fish?
Hie wash-up of medical-type waste and
garbage on New York and Long Island
beaches has not affected the sanitary condition
of marine fish, lobster and crabs. Furthermore,
fish do not cany the AIDS virus. Consumers
need not worry about eating these foods
because of these problems. Good sanitary
practices should be followed when preparing
any fish. Fish should be kept iced or
refrigerated until cleaned and filleted and then
refrigerated until cooked. Hands, utensils, and
work surfaces should be washed before and
after handling any raw food, including fish.
Seafood should be cooked to an internal
temperature of 140°F.
What Can I Do To Reduce My Exposure
To Chemical Contaminants From Fish?
Fish is an important source of protein and
is low in saturated fat. Naturally-occurring fish
oils lower plasma cholesterol and triglycerides,
thereby decreasing the risk of coronary heart
disease. Increasing fish consumption is useful
in reducing dietary fat and controlling weight.
By eating a diet which includes food from a
variety of protein sources, an individual is more
likely to have a diet which is adequate in all
nutrients.
Although eating fish has some health
benefits, fish with high contaminant levels
should be avoided. When deciding whether or
not to eat fish which may be contaminated, the
benefits of eating those fish can be weighed
against the risks. For young women, eating
contaminated fish is a health concern not only
for herself but also to any unborn or nursing
child, since the chemicals may reach the fetus
and can be passed on in breastmilk. For an
older person with heart disease the risks,
especially of long-term health effects, may not
be as great a concern when compared to the
benefits of reducing the risks of heart disease.
Everyone can benefit from eating the fish
they catch and can minimize their contaminant
intake by following these general
recommendations:
1. Choose uncontaminated species from
watertoodies which are not listed in the
DOH advisories.
2. Use a method of filleting the fish which will
reduce the skin, fatty material and dark
meat. These parts of the fish contain
many of the contaminants.
3. Choose smaller fish, consistent with DEC
regulations, within a species since they
may have lower contaminant levels. Older
(larger) fish within a species may be more
contaminated because they have had
more time to accumulate contaminants in
their bodies.
4. For shellfish, such as crab and lobster, do
not eat the soft green substance found in
the body section (mustard, tomalley, liver
or hepatopancreas). This part of the
shellfish has been found to contain high
levels of chemical contaminants, including
PCBs and heavy metals.
5. Cooking methods such as broiling,
poaching, boiling and baking, which allow
contaminants from the fatty portions of fish
to drain out, are preferable. Pan frying is
not recommended. The cooking liquids of
fish from contaminated waters should be
avoided since these liquids may retain
contaminants.
4
-------
B-1.8
1994-1995 Health Advisories
The following recommendations are based on contaminant levels in fish and wildlife. To minimize potential
adverse health impacts, the DOH recommends:
• Eat no more than one meal (one-half pound) per week of fish from the state's freshwaters, the
Hudson River estuary, or the New York City harbor area including Upper and Lower Bays, Arthur Kill,
Kill Van Kull, East River to the Throgs Neck Bridge and Harlem River, except as recommended below.
• Women of childbearing age, infants and children under the age of 15 should not eat any fish
species from waters listed below.
• Follow trimming and cooking advice.
• Observe the following restrictions on eating fish from these waters and their tributaries to the first
barrier impassable by fish.
Water (County)
Species
Recommendations
Chemical(s)
of Concern
Barge Canal: Tonawanda
Creek, Lockport to Niagara
River (Erie & Niagara) [ 5 ]
Carp
Belmont Lake (Suffolk) [ 52 ] Carp
Big Moose Lake
(Herkimer) [ 30 ]
Buffalo River and Harbor
(Erie) [7]
Canadice Lake
(Ontario) [ 10 ]
Canandaigua Lake (Ontario &
Yates) [ 12 ]
Carry Falls Reservoir
(St Lawrence) [ 21 ]
Cayuga Creek (Niagara) [ 3 ]
Delaware Park Lake
(Erie) [ 6 ]
East River (NYC) [ 46 ]
Eighteen Mile Creek
(Niagara) [ 4 ]
Yellow perch
Carp
Lake or brown trout
over 21"
Lake trout over 24"
Walleye
All species
Carp
American eel
All species
Eat no more than one
meal per month
Eat no more than one
meal per month
Eat no more than one
meal per month.
Eat none
Eat none
Eat no more than one
meal per month
Eat no more than one
meal per month
Eat none
Eat no more than one
meal per month
Eat none
Eat none
PCB
Chlordane, PCB
Mercury
PCB
PCB
PCB
Mercury
Dioxin
PCB
PCB
PCB
Waters with changes from the 1993-94 Health Advisories are underlined.
Numbers in brackets refer to map on page 10.
5
-------
B-19
Water (County)
Species
Recommendations
Chemicai(s)
of Concern
Ferris Lake [ 33 ] (Hamilton) Yellow perch over 12"
Smaller yellow perch
Fourth Lake (Herkimer &
Hamilton) [ 32 ]
Francis Lake (Lewis) [ 24 ]
Gill Creek: Mouth to Hyde
Park Lake Dam
(Niagara) [ 2 ]
Grasse River: Mouth to
Massena Power Canal
(St Lawrence) [ 37 ]
Halfmoon Lake (Lewis) [ 23 ]
Hall's Pond (Nassau) [ 48 ]
Harlem River (NYC) [ 44 ]
Hoosic River
(Rensselaer) [ 38 ]
Hudson Riven [42 ]
Hudson Falls to Troy Dam
Troy Dam south to bridge at
Catskill
Bridge at Catskill south to
and including the New York
Harbor area
Lake trout
Yellow perch
All species
All species
Yellow perch
Carp, goldfish
American eel
Brown and rainbow
trout
All species
All species
except American shad
All species except
American shad,
blueback herring,
bluegill, pumpkinseed,
and yellow perch
Blue crab
-hepatopancreas
(mustard, tomalley, or
liver)
-cooking liquid
Eat none
Eat no more than one
meal per month
Eat none
Eat no more than one
meal per month
Eat none
Eat none
Eat no more than one
meai per month
Eat none
Eat none
Eat no more than one
meai per month
No fishing
Eat none
Eat no more than one
meai per month
Eat no more than 6
crabs per week
Eat none
Discard
Mercury
Mercury
DDT
Mercury
PCB, Dioxin
PCB
Mercury
Chlordane
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
Cadmium, PCB
Cadmium, PCB
Cadmium, PCB
Waters with changes from the 1993-94 Health Advisories are underlined.
Numbers in brackets refer to map on page 10.
6
-------
B-20
Water (County)
Species
Recommendations
Chemical(s)
of Concern
Indian Lake (Lewis) [ 18 ] All species
Irondequoit Bay [ 9 ] Carp
Keuka Lake (Yates & Steuben) Lake trout over 25"
[16]
KInderhook Lake (Columbia)
[41]
American eel
Eat no more than one
meal per month
Eat none
Eat no more than one
meal per month
Eat no more than one
meal per month
Mercury
PCB, Mi rex
DDT
PCB
Koppers Pond
(Chemung) [ 11 ]
Lake Champlain: [ 35 ]
Whole Lake
Bay within Cumberland Head
to Valcour Island
Lake Ontario & Niagara River
Below the falls [ 8 ]
West of Point Breeze
East of Point Breeze
Long Pond (Lewis) [ 22 ]
Upper Massapequa
Reservoir (Nassau) [ 51 ]
Massena Power Canal
(St Lawrence) [ 31 ]
Carp
Lake trout over 25",
Walleye over 19"
American eel, brown
bullhead
American eel, channel
catfish, carp, lake
trout, chinook salmon,
coho salmon over 21
rainbow trout over 25",
brown trout over 20"
White sucker, smaller
coho salmon, rainbow
and brown trout
White perch
White perch
Loft's Pond (Nassau) [ 50 ] Carp, goldfish
Splake over 12*
White perch
Smallmouth bass
Eat no more than one
meal per month
Eat no more than one
meal per month
Eat no more than one
meal per month
Eat none
Eat no more than one
meal per month
Eat none
Eat no more than one
meal per month
Eat no more than one
meal per month
Eat none
Eat no more than one
meal per month
Eat no more than one
meal per month
PCB
PCB,
Mercury
PCB
PCB, Mirex,
Dioxin
PCB, Mirex,
Dio)dn
PCB, Mirex,
Dioxin
PCB, Mirex,
Dioxip
Chlordane
Mercury
Chlordane
PCB
Waters with changes from the 1993-94 Health Advisories are underlined.
Numbers in brackets refer to map on page 10.
7
-------
B-21
Water (County)
Species
Recommendations
Chemical(s)
of Concern
Meacham Lake
(Franklin) [ 29 ]
Mohawk River: Between
Oriskany and West Canada
Creeks [ 15 ]
Moshier Reservoir (Herkimer)
[25]
Nassau Lake
(Rensselaer) [ 39 ]
Niagara River: [ 1 ]
Above the falls
Below the falls (also see
Lake Ontario)
Onondaga Lake
(Onondaga) [ 20 ]
Oswego Riven Oswego power
dam to upper dam at Fulton
(Oswego) [ 14 ]
Round Pond: Town of Long
Lake (Hamilton) [ 34 ]
St James Pond
(Suffolk) [ 53 ]
St Lawrence River: [ 27 ]
Whole River
Yellow perch over 12" Eat none
Smaller yellow perch
Carp
Yellow perch
AH species
Carp
White Perch
Smallmouth bass
All species
Channel catfish
Yellow perch over 12"
All species
American eel, channel
catfish, lake trout,
carp, Chinook salmon,
coho salmon over 21
rainbow trout over 25",
brown trout over 20"
White perch, smaller
Coho salmon, rainbow
and brown trout
Eat no more than one
meal per month
Eat none
Eat no more than one
meal per month
Eat none
Eat no more than one
meal per month
Eat none
Eat no more than one
meal per month
Eat none
Eat no more than one
meal per month
Eat no more than one
meal per month
Eat no more than one
meal per month
Eat none
Mercury
Mercury
PCB
Mercury
PCB
PCB
PCB, Mirex,
Dioxin
PCB, Mirex,
Dioxin
Mercury
PCB
Mercury
Chlordane, DOT
PCB, Mirex,
Dioxin
Eat no more than one
meal per month
PCB, Mirex,
Dioxin
Waters with changes from the 1993-94 Health Advisories are underlined.
Numbers in brackets refer to map on page 10.
8
-------
B-22
Water (County)
Species
Recommendations
Chemical(s)
of Concern
St. Lawrence River - con't.
Bay at St. Lawrence -
Franklin Co. line
All species
Eat none
rUD
Salmon River: Mouth to
Salmon Reservoir (Oswego)
(also see Lake
Ontario) [ 17 ]
Smallmouth bass
Eat none
PCB
Saw Mil! River
[43]
American eel
Eat no more than one
meal per month
PCB
Schroon Lake (Warren &
Essex) [ 36 ]
Lake trout over 27"
Eat no more than one
meal per month
PCB
Sheldrake River
(Westchester) [ 45 ]
American eel
Eat none
Chlordane, PCB
Skaneateles Creek: From dam
at Skaneateles to Seneca
River (Onondaga) [ 19 ]
Brown trout over 10"
Eat no more than one
meal per month
PCB
Smith Pond-Roosevelt Park
(Nassau) [49 ]
American eel
Carp, goldfish
Eat none
Eat no more than one
meal per month
Chlordane
Chlordane
Sorina Pond (Suffolk r 541
Carp, goldfish
Eat none
Chlordane
Stillwater Reservoir
(Herkimer) [ 28 ]
Splake
Eat no more than one
meal per month
Mercury
Sunday Lake
(Herkimer) [26 ]
Yellow perch
Eat no more than one
meal per month
Mercury
Threemtle Creek
(Oneida) [ 13 ]
White sucker
Eat no more than one
meal per month
PCB
Valatie Kill: Between County
RL 18 and Nassau Lake
(Rensselaer) [40}
All species
Eat none
PCB
WMtnev Park Pond (Nassau)
[47]
Carp, goldfish
Eat no more than one
meal per month
PCB
Waters with changes from the 1993-94 Health Advisories are underlined
Numbers in brackets refer to map on page 10.
9
-------
B-23
Waters with Restrictive
Fish Consumption
Advisories
1994
37l
27
23--.?
21
126
•29
35
34
14
20
.33
119 [
IOC
41,
11
1
Niagara River
22
Long Pond
2
Gill Creek
23
Halfmoon Lake
j/f \ gf
/\ 54 _-r
3
Cayuga Creek
24
Francis Lake
4
Eighteen Mile Creek
25
Moshier Reservior
S
Barge Canal
26
Sunday Lake
6
Delaware Park Lake
27
St Lawrence River
7
Buffalo River and Harbor
28
Stillwater Reservoir
49 SO
8
Lake Ontario
29
Meacham Lake
9
Irondequott Bay
30
Big Moose Lake
10
CanadBce Lake
31
Massena Power Canal
43
Saw Mill River
11
Koppers Pond
32
Fourth Lake
44
Harlem River
12
Canandaigua Lake
33
Ferris Lake
45
Sheldrake River
13
Threemile Creek
34
Round Pond
46
East River
14
Oswego River
35
Lake Champlain
47
Whitney Park Pond
15
Mohawk River
36
Schroon Lake
48
Hall's Pond
16
Keuka Lake
37
Grasse River
49
Smith Pond (Roosevelt Park)
17
Salmon River
38
Hoosic River
50
Loft's Pond
18
Indian Lake
39
Nassau Late
51
Upper Massapequa Reservoir
19
Skaneatetes Creek
40
Valatie Kill
52
Belmont Lake
20
Onondaga Lake
41
Kinderhook Lake
53
St James Pond
21
Cany Falls Reservoir
42
Hudson River
54
Spring Pond
10
-------
B
Additional Advice
Marine Waters - The general advisory (eat no
more than one meal per week) applies to
bluefish and American eels but not to other fish
from Long Island Sound, Peconic/Gardiners
Bays, Jamaica Bay and other Long Island
South Shore waters. (Contaminant of con-
cem-PCB)
Marine Striped Bass - Eat no more than one
meal (one-half pound) per month of striped
bass taken from New York Harbor or Long Is-
land Sound west of Wading River. Eat no more
than one meal (one-half pound) per week of
striped bass taken from Eastern Long Island
Sound, the Peconic/Gardiners Bays and Long
Island South Shore waters. The legal minimum
length of marine striped bass is 36". (Con-
taminant of concem-PCB)
Marine Crabs and Lobsters - The hepato-
pancreas (mustard, tomalley or liver) of crabs
and lobsters should not be eaten because it
has high contaminant levels. (Contaminants
of concern-cadmium, PCB)
Hudson River Shad - The advisory for women
of childbearing age, infants, and children under
the age of 15 is EAT NONE for all fish (includ-
ing American shad) from the lower Hudson
River because of PCB contamination. How-
ever, shad have lower PCB levels than other
species. A few meals of Hudson River shad
meat and roe, especially using cooking and
trimming methods that minimize PCB content,
would not pose an unacceptable health risk for
women of childbearing age and children as-
suming this is their only significant exposure to
PCBs.
Snapping turtles - Snapping turtles retain
contaminants in their fat, liver, eggs and, to a
lesser extent, muscle. If you choose to con-
sume snapping turtles, carefully trim away all
fat and discard the fat, liver and eggs prior to
cooking the meat or preparing soup to reduce
exposure. Women of childbearing age, infants,
and children under the age of 15 should avoid
eating snapping turtles or soups made with
their meat. (Contaminant of concern-PCB)
Waterfowl - Mergansers are the most heavily
contaminated waterfowl species and should not
be eaten. Other waterfowl should be skinned
and all fat removed before cooking; stuffing
should be discarded after cooking; limit eating
to two meals per month. Monitoring data indi-
cate that wood ducks and Canada geese are
less contaminated than other waterfowl species
with dabbler ducks and then diving ducks hav-
ing increasingly higher contaminant levels.
(Contaminants of concem-PCB, mirex, chlor-
dane, DDT)
11
-------
Additional Information
B-25
New York State Department of Health
For more information on health effects from exposure to chemical contaminants, contact:
Environmental Health Information: 1-800-458-1158 (toll-free from New York State tele-
phones), These calls are taken from 8:00-4:30, and after hours callers can record a mes-
sage. Out of state callers should dial 518/458-6409.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
For more information on fishing, contact:
Region 7
615 Erie Blvd. West
Syracuse, NY 13204
(315) 426-7400
Region 8
Routes 5 and 20
Avon, NY 14414
(716) 226-2466
Region 9
600 Delaware Ave.
Buffalo, NY 14202
(716) 851-7000
For information on contaminant levels, contact:
Bureau of Environmental Protection
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
(518) 457-6178
Prepared by:
New York State Department of Health
Division of Environmental Health Assessment
#40820042
Revised April 28,1994
Region 1
SUNY Campus, Bldg. 40
Stony Brook, NY 11794
(516) 444-0441
Region 2
47-40 21st St.
Long Island City, NY 11101
(718)482-4922
Region 3
21 South Putt Comers Rd.
New Paltz, NY 12561
(914) 255-5453
Regional Offices
Region 4
2176 Guilderiand Ave.
Schenectady, NY 12306
(518) 382-0680
Region 5
Route 86
Ray Brook, NY 12977
(518) 891-1370
Region 6
State Office Bldg.
Watertown, NY 13601
(315) 785-2513
12
-------
B-26
Health Advisory
Chemicals in Sportfish and Game
We always look for ways to improve our environmental risk communication, and
we value your suggestions. Please mail this form back to us if you have any
comments.
Was the advisory helpful in explaining:
~ the problem?
• the risk and benefits of eating sportfish?
Was anything missing? If so, what?
Was it understandable?
Suggestions for improvement:
Thank you for your suggestions.
Please fold this page in thirds, staple and mail to:
New York State Department of Health
Bureau of Toxic Substance Assessment
2 University Place, Room 240
Albany, New York 12203-3399
-------
New York State Department of Health
Bureau of Toxic Substance Assessment
2 University Place, Room 240
Albany, New York 12203-3399
-------
(."HO 031-4015
PAN t*r.l»M«77
inu-\.mv.Miv (W» m-wif
OHD FACT SHEETS. MERCURY
Where does mercury come from?
Mercury is a chemical that occurs naturally in the environment
in several forms; in the njetallicorelemental form and combined
with other elements to form mercuiy compounds such as methyl-
mercury, All forms of mercury are potentially hazardous, It Is
believed the greatest source of elemental mercury in Oregon isinthc
soils,,r$cks, and sediments. This natural source of mercury is.due to
past volcanic activity.
Although elemental mercury found in soils and rode poses
little hazard, through erosion and bacterial action, the mercury can
become hazardous through a process known as methylatiaxt.. Bodies
of water in volcanic areas may contaiii.eaough mercury to result In
dangerous levels in organisms which Eve in the water including
plankton, and edible fish and shellfish.
In to sources, human activities contribute
to mercury in the .environment. Sources of contamination-
include the burning of peiroleum fuels (especially coal), mining
operations ar»d mineral extraction, and other industrial
discharge*.
Homr docs nunrcazyget iattMh* fish?
. Natniafly occurring bacteria thai live in sediment .or near the
bottom of bodies of water can convert mercuiy into an ocganlg form
known as jnethyisKrctuy. Methylmercory is absoibed directly by
aquatic organisms, ami it is also taken in through the food they eat
Fish eliminate mercury from their bodies at a very slaw rate,
so concentrations can gradually build up. Therefore, the longer a fish
lives in mercury-contaminated water, the greater the accumulation
there will be in its tissues.
Which fish contain tha most Bierciixyf
Generally, mercury levels, are related to age, size and spedes
of fish, and. the amount of mercury in the water and sediments. The
mercury a fish absorbs is stored throughout its body, especially in its
muscle tissue, the edible portion, and in its internal organs. Cleaning
or cooking mercury^contaminated fish, discarding parts, or removing
fat will cm lower mercury content dependably.
How does mercury affect human health?
Like many substances, mercuiy is toxic and acts as a poison
DLTARTMKNT OP
ML'MAN
•..-iff.
RESOURCES
HEALTH DIVISION!
* ' •• m
:t
KiX> Nh ( !»liwt »
I\«ntorul. OR V7TC-21
(SJ?i F.rwt
tSC.»2W»Wl
EmoiKwicy :'"*A
:;>•»!« i *<3i
•1
Jtot*
-------
when it reaches certain concentrations In the body. Methyimercuxy is
the most important form of mercury i«i terms of toxicity, and health
effects from environmental exposures. The central nervous system
appears to he most sensitive to orgafiteanercury toxicity. Current
research shows that human fetuser are-much more sensitive to
mercury than adults. Pregnant women are about twice as sensitive to
mercury as other adults, because mercuty takes longer to leave their
bodiw. Children are at greater risk, because they eat more food than
adults in proportion to their body weight These groups are likewise
at increased risk of adverse neurological effects from methylmercuxy.
How Is the poblk protected from consuming mercury-contaminated
fish?
Two federal agencies have responsibility in protecting humans
from exposure to harmful levels of mercury. The UJ. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) Is responsible for setting the standards
for tolerable levels of mercury in fish sold via interstate commerce.
Currently, the FDA allowable level of mercury in fish is 1 J) ppm.
The FDA periodically tests fish typically sold in markets to determine
the levels of mercury and other contaminants and when necessary,
products.
Another agency that regulates mercury is the UJL
Environmental Protection. Agency (EPA). Recently, the EPAhas
developed a recommended fish tissue guideline of (£6 ppm. Based
upon this EPA standard, the Oregon Health Division (OBD) issues
Bsh advisories when levels of 0,$ ppm or greater are found in a
substantial portion of fish tested from a particular body of water.
Are there ways one cas reduce exposure to mercury via fish*
Because mercury bioaccomwlates in edible fish tissue the only
way to limit exposure is to reduce the amount of fish eaten froat
contaminated waterways. Therefore, the OKD warns that pregnant
women, nursing women, and children* up to six years of age should
not consume any amount of fish from bodies of water where levels of
mercuiy in fish exceed 0.6 ppm. Likewise, children older than six
years and healthy adults should limit their consumption of fish in
accordance with amounts recommended for that particular body of
water.
fW Additional Contact:
/•'¦athiirin* Nwimfttin, or Ken Kauffman, R.S. Environmental
Services and Consultation, Oregon Health Division (503)-731-4015.
-------
EAT
aaaia
FISH
COV NTSES ZOO NOJ TAU
Key
0
All Fish are OK
TAG NRO COV NTSES NO ZOO
NOJ TAU
Fish Warning
COV NTSES NO YUAV TAU CEEV FAJ
OK to Eat
COV NTSES NO NOJ TAU
Do Not Eat
COV NTSES NO NOJ TSIS TAU
No Fish Safe to Eat
COV NTSES NO TSIS ZOO NOJ LI
Other Fish
LWMVAM NTSES
Ag*«ey Coop^'ano*
t*iwco« IN*. SfH«xjyg*n
Uk*shoscof&* 0go*«5*m si
N^NtriM PfciOufCM
JCWR7M?
PU8 NO PQH*m-«i
mwioa*
mcrcita
.•r
I
-------
B-31
- 8 WV£iIV
\
4-* > sfde fat
4^^ ,
1L. belly fat
Trim away these fatty areas
Advisories for Eating Fish From Georgia Waters
Fishing is a popular pastime in Georgia. Whether you go
alone to relax and enjoy nature, with your friends to enjoy
camaraderie and "fish tales", or with your family to pass
on a sport you learned as a child, fishing is a fun and rewarding
sport enjoyed by many people. Not only does fishing give
people an excuse to get away from the hustle and bustle of daily
life, but it can also put a healthy, satisfying meal on the table.
Fish are low in saturated fat, high in protein, and can have
substantial benefits when eaten in place of other high-fat foods.
The quality of sport fish caught in Georgia is vety good;
however, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), chlordane, and
mercury have been found in some fish from a few bodies of
water. In most cases, the levels of these chemicals are low.
However, to ensure the good health of Georgia anglers, the
Georgia Department of Natural Resources has issued advisories
for certain species of fish from some waters. These advisories
are determined using standards set by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA). These advisories are not intended to
cause panic or to discourage people from eating fish, but
anglers should use them as a guide for choosing to eat fish from
Georgia waters.
How to Reduce Your Health Risk
Keep smaller fish for eating. As a general rule, larger, older
fish may be more contaminated than younger, smaller fish. You
can minimize your health risk by eating smaller fish that are
within legal size limits and releasing the larger fish to be
caught again.
Vary the kinds of fish you eat. Contaminants build up in large
predators and bottom-feeding fish, like bass and catfish, more
rapidly than in other species. By substituting a few meals with
panfish, such as perch, sunfish and crappie, you can reduce
your risk.
Eat smaller meals when you eat big fish and eat them less
often. If you catch a big fish, freeze part of the catch and space
the meals from this fish out over a period of time.
Clean and cook your fish properly. How you clean and cook
your fish can reduce the level of contaminants by as much as
half in some fish. Some chemicals have a tendency to concen-
trate in the fatty tissues of fish. By removing the fish's skin and
trimming fillets according to the following diagram, you can
reduce the level of chemicals substantially. Mercury is bound to
the meat of the fish, so these precautions will not help reduce
this contaminant
Remove the skin from fillets or steaks. The internal organs
(intestines, liver, and so forth) and skin are often high in fat and
contaminants.
Trim off the fatty areas shown in black on the drawing.
These include the belly fat, side fat, and the flesh along the top
of the back. Careful trimming can reduce some contaminants
by 25 to 50%.
Cook fish so fat drips away. Broil, bake or grill fish and do
not use the drippings. Deep-fat frying removes some contami-
nants, but you should discard the oil once you have cooked the
fish. Pan frying removes few, if any, contaminants.
How does DNR determine what waters are tested?
Georgia has more than 71,000 miles of rivers and streams
and more than 421,000 acres of lakes. It will not be possible for
DNR to sample every stream and lake in the state. However,
high priority has been placed on the 26 major reservoirs, which
make up more than 90% of the total lake acreage. Waterways
listed in this guide will continue to be sampled as part of a five
year rotating schedule to track any trends in fish contaminant
levels. The Department has also made sampling fish in rivers
and streams downstream of urban and/or industrial areas a high
priority In addition, DNR will focus attention on areas which
are frequented by a large number of anglers.
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is committed
to protecting Georgia's rivers, streams, lakes and other waters.
Both PCBs and chlordane have been banned, and, over time,
the levels of these chemicals are expected to decrease.
What are the health benefits of eating fish?
Fish provide a high protein, low fat diet which is low in
saturated fats. Many scientists suggest that eating a half-pound
of fish a week can help prevent heart disease. Fish may have
substantial health benefits when they replace a high fat source
of protein in the diet.
What are the health risks of eating contaminated
fish?
These advisories were designed to protect you from experi-
encing health problems associated with eating contaminated
fish. PCBs, chlordane, and methylmercury build up in your
body over time. It may take months or years of regularly eating
contaminated fish to accumulate levels which would affect your
health.
Page 20
Georgia Wildlife Resources Division & Coastal Resources Division
-------
Guidelines for Georgia Rivers
Lake Oliver
B-32
The Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
routinely tests the tissue of fish collected from freshwater lakes,
rivers and streams throughout Georgia. Based on the test
results, DNR periodically issues fish consumption advisories to
inform anglers of health risks associated with eating certain
types of fish from some bodies of water. High risk groups such
as pregnant women, nursing mothers, women who are planning
a pregnancy and children should avoid consumption of con-
taminated fish. This advisory provides general guidance to the
angler to help reduce their risk.
Following are the current fish consumption advisories in
Georgia freshwaters when this publication went to press
(February 1994) . As results of fish tissue sampling become
available, fish consumption advisories may be changed. To
Ieara more about fish consumption advisories, contact your
nearest Fisheries Office.
Chattahoochee River and West Point Reservoir:
Because the level of chlordane in fish tissue has been found
to exceed the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) standards:
A) Do not eat largemouth bass taken from the Chattahoochee
River in the vicinity of Ga. Hwy. 92.
B) Do not eat carp, hybrid bass, and catfish taken from the
Chattahoochee River in the vicinity of Ga. Hwy. 92
downstream through West Point Reservoir to the dam.
Coosa, Etowah, and Oostanaula Rivers:
Because the level of PCBs in fish tissue has been found to
exceed FDA standards:
A) Do not eat any fish taken from the Coosa River from the
confluence of the Oostanaula and Etowah Rivers in Rome
to the Alabama-Georgia border; from the Etowah River
downstream of U.S. Hwy. 411; and from the Oostanaula
River downstream of Ga. Hwy. 56.
B) Commercial fishing from these river sections is banned.
Alapaha, Suwanee, and Withlacoochee Rivers:
Because the levels of mercury in fish tissue has been found
to exceed FDA standards:
A) Adults should not eat mixed species of fish taken from
these rivers more than once per week.
B) Pregnant mothers, nursing mothers, females contemplating
pregnancy, and children under 15 years of age should not
eat mixed fish species more than once per month.
C) Eating laigemouth bass exclusively should be avoided.
Because the levels of chlordane has been found to exceed
FDA standards:
A) Do not eat channel catfish taken from Lake Oliver.
/
Lake Hartweil
Because the level of PCBs has been found to exceed FDA
standards:
A) Do not eat hybrid bass weighing over 3 pounds taken from
Lake Hartweil.
For more Information
For more information on eating fish from Georgia's rivers
or on consumption guidelines in any Georgia waters, contact
the Georgia Department of Natural Resources.
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Protection Division
205 Butler Street, S.E., Suite 1152
Atlanta, GA 30334
(404) 656-4713
or
Department of Natural Resources
Wildlife Resources Division
2123 U.S. Hwy. 278, S.E.
Social Circle, GA 30279
(404)918-6418
1994-1995 Sport Fishing Regulations
Page 21
-------
B-33
Fish Facts
Contaminants in Minnesota Fish
The quality of sport fish taken in Minnesota is
among the highest in the Great Lakes region.
However, chemicals like mercury,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and dioxin
have been found in fish from certain waters.
The levels found are usually low and in
Minnesota there are no known cases of illness
from these contaminants. This fact sheet
describes these contaminants.
To minimize exposures to these contaminants
and ensure the continued good health of
Minnesota anglers, the Minnesota Department of
Health has guidelines for how often
contaminated fish can be safely eaten. This
advice is published in the Minnesota Fish
Consumption Advisory. The booklet lists meal
advice for more than 500 locations in
Minnesota. You can get an advisory booklet by
writing to "Fish Advisory", Minnesota
Department of Health, 925 S.E. Delaware
Street, P.O. Box59040, Minneapolis, Minnesota
55459-0040, or by calling 627-5423 or 1-800-
657-3908.
What contaminants are found in
Minnesota fish?
Fish in Minnesota lakes and rivers accumulate
mercury. Mercury recycles between land,
water, and air and enters plant and animal
tissue. Although mercury is a naturally
occurring metal, most of the mercury which
enters Minnesota waters comes from household
and industrial wastes during incineration, from
latex, paints, and from burning coal and other
fossE fuels. Mercury levels are slowly
increasing in lakes in the northern part of the
state.
Fish in some lakes and nearly half of the rivers
which have been sampled for the advisory
program contain PCBs. These synthetic oils had
many uses and are found in electrical
transformers, cutting oils, and carbonless paper.
Although they were banned in 1976, they do not
decompose easily and remain in the water and
lake sediments for years. PCB levels in
Minnesota's waters are slowly decreasing.
Fish from only a few areas in Minnesota (St.
Louis Bay, Rainy River, and one site on the
Mississippi River in the area of Little Falls) may
be contaminated with dioxin. This chemical is
an unwanted by-product of incineration and
some industrial processes that use chlorine.
Contaminants can reach rivers and lakes from
local sources such as improperly stored wastes
and abandoned dumps. If a local source is
identified, it may be possible to clean it up and
decrease the contamination of the lake or river.
However, contaminants can reach remote and
pristine lakes from the atmosphere. The sources
for much of the contamination which concern us
today are not known and may be from beyond
Minnesota's borders.
How do contaminants get into fish?
Once in a lake, mercury is converted to
methylmercury by bacteria and other processes.
Fish absorb methylmercury from their food and
from water as it passes over their gills.
Mercury is tightly bound to proteins in all fish
tissue including muscle. There is no method of
cooking or cleaning fish which will reduce the
amount of mercury in a meal.
Fish absorb PCBs and dioxin from water,
suspended sediments, and food. PCBs and
dioxin concentrate in the fat of fish and In fatty
fish such as carp and catfish. Cleaning and
cooking a fish to remove fat will lower the
amount of PCBs or dioxin in a fish meal.
Larger, older fish and fish which eat other fish
accumulate more contaminants than smaller,
younger fish which eat less contaminated prey.
Contaminants are not usually detected in panftsh
such as bluegill and crappies.
Minnesota Department of Health « Section of Hfaith Risk Assessment « 925 S.E. Delaware St„ Minneapolis, MN 55414 • 612/627-5046
-------
B-34
How do Minnesota's fish compare
with other states?
Minnesota has one of the most extensive fish
monitoring programs in the United States. Not
because Minnesota has some of the most
contaminated fish; rather, Minnesota has more
lakes and miles of river to be concerned about
than most states. All of the Great Lakes states
and Ontario face many of the same problems of
mercury, PCB and dioxin contamination and all
issue fish consumption advisories. However,
Lake Superior is the least contaminated of the
Great Lakes. Mercury contamination in
Wisconsin and Ontario's inland lakes is
comparable to that in Minnesota. Advisories
that states issue for interstate border waters may
differ because of differences in how health risks
are Interpreted. A health advisory for people
who eat sport fish from Wisconsin waters is
available by writing "Fish Advisory", Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources, P.O. Box
7921, Madison, WI 53707 (608-267-7610).
The "Guide to eating Ontario sport fish" is
available from the Public Information Centre,
Environment and Energy Ontario, 135 St. Clair
Ave. West, Toronto, Ontario M4V 1P5 (416-
314-7886).
Guidelines to Reduce Your Health
Risk
Keep smaller fish for eating. Selective catch-
and-release, keeping only smaller fish for the
table, can keep you and the fishery healthy. In
addition to tasting better, younger, smaller fish
are less contaminated than older, larger fish.
Eat fish that are less contaminated. Substitute
a few panfish meals for the walleye or northern
pike you might otherwise eat. Contaminants
such as mercury and PCBs build up in large
predator fish. Their prey, including panfish
such as perch, sunfish and crappie, have less
contaminants.
Eat smaller meals when you eat big fish and
eat them less often. Freeze part of your catch
to space the meals out over time.
Clean and cook your fish properly. Chemicals
such as PCBs and dioxin concentrate in fatty
tissues, so removing the skin of fish and
trimming the fillets to remove the fatty areas
shown in the following diagram can reduce
levels of these chemicals by 20 to 50 percent.
Broiling, baking or grilling fish so that the fat
drips away reduces PCB and dioxin levels even
farther. Poaching and deep-fat frying removes
some contaminants—but discard the broth or oil.
If you eat turtle meat, remove as much of the fat
as possible before cooking. Mercury is bound
to the meat of fish and these precautions will
not reduce the amount of mercury in a meal
of fish.
^— back fat
Ik « \
jjjsy .jCt / i \
» If—side fat
£ss5£ •"* I Ailui 1
\ BfSJnJ
— belly fat
Courtesy of Wisconsin Sea Grant
For more information:
On the health risks of contaminants, or for
additional fact sheets and brochures on fish
contaminants:
Minnesota Department of Health
(612) 627-5047
On the sources of contaminants in Minnesota's
environment:
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(612) 296-6300
On collecting and testing fish:
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
(612) 296-2835
Or to request this document in another format,
call (612) 627-5100. TDD: Minn. Relay
Service 297-5353 or Toll Free 1-800-627-3529
(Greater Minnesota).
-------
B-35
Fish Facts
Eating Minnesota fish: Health risks and benefits
Fish consumption advice offered by the Minnesota
Department of Health is intended to keep the mercury
in your body below levels that damage the nervous
system.
Exposure to PCBs is linked to infant development
problems in children whose mothers were exposed to
PCBs before becoming pregnant. Meal advice for
PCB-contaminated fish is intended to protect children
from developmental problems. PCBs also cause
changes in human blood, liver and immune function
of adults. In addition, PCBs cause cancer In
laboratory animals and may cause cancer In humans.
Fish in a few rivers are contaminated with dioxin, a
chemical that may cause cancer in people. Meal
advice for d ioxin-contaminated fish is based on the
PCBs or mercury found in the fish. However,
following meal guidelines fpr these contaminants will
reduce your exposure to dioxin.
Angling is great in Minnesota and so are the fish.
Fish are-low in fat, high in protein, and may have
substantial health benefits when eaten in place of
high-fat foods. While the quality of sport fish taken
in Minnesota is among the highest in the Great Lakes
region, chemicals like mercury, polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), and dioxin have been found in
some fish from certain waters. The levels found are
usually low and in Minnesota there are no known
cases of illness from these contaminants. This fact
sheet describes the health effects of these
contaminants.
To ensure the continued good health of Minnesota
anglers, the Minnesota Department of Health has
guidelines for how often these fish can be safely
eaten. This advice is published in the Minnesota Fish
Consumption Advisory. The booklet lists meal
advice for more than 500 locations in Minnesota.
This advisory is not intended to discourage anglers
from eating fish, but should be used as a guide to
choosing fish which are low in contaminants. You
can get an advisory booklet by writing to "Fish
Advisory", Minnesota Department of Health, 925
S.E. Delaware Street, P.O. Box 59040, Minneapolis,
Minnesota 55459-0040, or by calling 627-5423 or 1-
800-657-3908.
What are the health risks of eating
contaminated fish?
PCBs, dioxin and methylmercury build up in your
body over time. It may take months or years of
regularly eating contaminated fish to accumulate
levels which are a health concern. As you follow the
fish advisory, the amount of methylmercury you
take into your body is safely eliminated between
meals. Larger amounts of may harm the nervous
system. The fetus is especially sensitive to mercury
poisoning. Delays in infant development have
occurred following high maternal exposures to
methylmercury. The first symptoms of adult
poisoning include incoordination and a burning or
tingling sensation in the fingers and toes. As
mercury levels increase, your ability to walk, talk,
see, and hear may all be affected in subtle ways.
Currently, cancer will affect about one in every two
people In-Minnesota, primarily due to smoking, diet,
and hereditary risk factors. If you follow the
advisory over your lifetime, the PCBs or dioxin in
the fish you eat may not increase your cancer risk at
all. At worst, using Environmental Protection
Agency methods to calculate risk from a lifetime of
eating contaminated fish, it is estimated that
approximately one additional cancer case may
develop in one of 2,500 to 10,000 people eating
contaminated fish according to the advisory. Eating
fewer meals of contaminated fish will further
decrease your cancer risk.
What about the health benefits of
eating fish?
Fish provide a high protein, low fat diet which is low
in saturated fats. Many researchers suggest that a
half-pound of fish a week in the diet is beneficial in
preventing heart disease. The health benefits of fatty
fish rich in omega-3 fatty acids are not clear. What
is clear, is that fish of almost any species—lean or fat-
-may have substantial health benefits when they
replace a high fat source of protein in the diet.
Minnesota Department of Health « Section of Health Risk Assessment « 925 S.E. Delaware St., Minneapolis, MN 55414 » 612/627-5046
-------
B-36
Nutritionists recommend eating three to four ounces
of fish in a meal. The meal guidelines are based on
an eight ounce serving (weight before cooking) for a
150-pound person. The meal per week or month
suggested in the advisory guidelines can be eaten as
two or three smaller meals over the same time
period.
What about commercially available
fish?
Fish from oceans, estuaries and inland waters may
contain small amounts of mercury and PCBs as well
as other contaminants. The amounts of contaminants
that may be present in commercially available fish
can add to what you are already taking in from sport
fish. Fish available in food stores and restaurants are
subject to inspection and regulation. Nationwide,
fish with levels of contaminants above Food and
Drug Administration levels of concern are not
allowed on the market. However, it is possible that
commercially available fish will meet federal
standards for food safety, yet not meet Minnesota
Department of Health guidelines for fish that can be
eaten in unlimited quantities. The Minnesota
Department of Health and Minnesota Department of
Agriculture support increased analysis of
contaminants in fish from all sources.
Guidelines to Reduce Your Health Risk
Keep smaller fish for eating. Selective catch-and-
release, keeping only smaller fish for the table, can
keep you and the fishery healthy: In addition to
tasting better, younger, smaller fish are less
contaminated than older, larger fish.
Eat fish that are less contaminated. Substitute a
few panfish meals for the walleye or northern pike
you might otherwise eat. Contaminants such as
mercury and PCBs build up in large predator fish.
Their prey, including panfish such as perch, sunfish
and crappie, have less contaminants.
Eat smaller meals when you eat big fish and eat
them less often. Freeze part of your catch to space
the meals out over time.
Clean and cook your fish properly. Chemicals
such as PCBs and dioxin concentrate in fatty tissues,
so removing the skin of fish and trimming the fillets
to remove the fatty areas shown in the following
diagram can reduce levels of these chemicals by 20
to 50 percent. Broiling, baking or grilling fish so
that the fat drips away reduces PCB and dioxin levels
even further. Poaching and deep-fat frying removes
some contaminants—but discard the broth or oil. If
you eat turtle meat, remove as much of the fat as
possible before cooking. Mercury Is bound to the
meat of fish and these precautions will not reduce
the amount of mercury in a meal of fish.
back fat
side fat
belly fat
Courtesy of Wisconsin Sea Grant
For more information:
On the health risks of contaminants, or for additional
fact sheets and brochures on fish contaminants:
Minnesota Department of Health
(612) 627-5047
On the sources of contaminants in Minnesota's
environment:
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(612) 296-6300
On collecting and testing fish:
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
(612) 296-2835
Or to request this document in another format, call
(612) 627-5100. TDD: Minn. Relay Service 297-
5353 or Toll Free 1-800-627-3529 (Greater
Minnesota).
FFAC31 May 1994
-------
B-37
Fish Facts
Methylmercury in Fish
What is methylmercury?
Mercury is a naturally occurring element found in rocks, soils, water and air. Mercury is
released into the air naturally, but also from burning household and industrial wastes and
especially from burning coal and other fossil fuels. Mercury in the air condenses on
particulates and returns to the earth in rain and snow. Once in a lake, mercury is converted
to methylmercury by bacteria or by chemical reactions. Methylmercury is simply a form of
mercury produced when a carbon and three hydrogen molecules are attached to the element
mercury.
How does methylmercuiy get Into fish?
Fish and the small animals that fish eat absorb methylmercury from water as it as it passes,
over their gills. Fish also absorb methylmercury from the prey they eat Methylmercury is
easily absorbed by fish—and by people when we eat fish. Almost all of the mercury in fish
is in the form of methylmercury. Mercury is tightly bound to proteins in all fish tissue,
including muscle. There is no method of cooking or cleaning fish which will reduce the
amount of mercury in a meal.
Are all fish contaminated with methylmercuiy?
Fish absorb methylmercury from the water throughout their life. The older a fish is the
more contaminated it could be. In addition, fish absorb methylmercury from their food, so
predatory fish such as walleye or northern pike will be more contaminated than fish such
as bluegttls or crappies. Fish at the top of a food chain in any system—lake, river, or ocean-
will have the greatest exposure to methylmercury.
It is likely that all fish contain small amounts of methylmercury because mercury is a
naturally occurring element. However, we do know that in Minnesota levels of
methylmercury in fish have been increasing. This increase is most likely due to more
mercury entering the environment from human activities.
What are the health risks of eating fish contaminated with methylmercuiy?
Methylmercury builds up in your body over time. It may take months or years of regularly
eating contaminated fish to accumulate levels which are a health concern. Small amounts
of methylmercury can be safely eliminated but larger amounts may damage the nervous
system. The fetus is more sensitive to mercury poisoning because of its developing nervous
system. In adults, the first symptoms of poisoning include incoordination and a burning or
tingling sensation in the fingers and toes. As mercury levels increase, your ability to walk,
talk, see, and hear may all be affected in subtle ways.
Minnesota Department of Health « Section of Health Risk Assessment » 925 S.E. Delaware St., Minneapolis, MN 55414 ? 612/627-5046
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
B-38
What levels are harmful?
Although we know what levels of methylmercury in the blood are associated with health
problems, we do not know exactly what levels protect against subtle damage which is only
now being researched. The Minnesota Department of Health and the United States Food
and Drug Administration take this uncertainty into account in setting levels for regulation
or advice. The Food and Drug Administration action level of 1 ppm protects the average
fish consumer, young children, and a significant number of consumers exceeding a daily dose
which is considered safe by the Food and Drug Administration. The Department of Health
gives advice over a range of contaminant levels which will help people choose how much
and which fish they want to eat.
Meal guidelines from the Minnesota Department of Health help people space meals of
methylmercuiy contaminated fish out over time. These guidelines are intended to protect
sport anglers from the first symptoms of mercury toxicity. Guidelines are specific for people
who eat sport fish only a few times a year, people who regularly eat contaminated sport fish,
and there are specific guidelines for women who may have children in the next few years,
pregnant women, nursing mothers and young children. For some of these groups, the
Department of Health begins giving advice to limit meals of mercury contaminated fish
when mercury levels are close to 0.2 ppm (parts per million).
For more information:
On the health risks of contaminants, or for copies of the
Minnesota Fish Consumption Advisoiy,
Minnesota Department of Health - (612) 627-5046
On the sources of contaminants in Minnesota's environment,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency - (612) 296-6300
On collecting and testing Minnesota sport fish,
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources - (612) 296-2835
On collecting and testing commercially available fish,
Minnesota Department of Agriculture - (612) 296-2627
FF8 - December 1991
-------
Fish Facts
Mercury in the Environment
Mercury in Fish
Mercury Pollution
Mercury (Hg in the table of elements) is a naturally-
occurring metal which is present at very low levels in
bedrock, soil, and water throughout Minnesota, Mercury
evaporates from rock, soil, and water into the air.
Mercury then returns to earth attached to small airborne
particles or as a water-soluble form washed out of the air
by rain or snow.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency estimates that 25
percent of the mercuiy that reaches Minnesota's land and
lakes Is natural in origin, coming from rocks or volcanic
activity. Hie remaining 75 percent of newly deposited
mercury comes from human activities. Major sources of
this airborne mercury include fungicides in latex paints (a
practice that is no longer legal), burning of coal and other
fossil-fuels, and burning of municipal solid waste. In
addition, mercuiy can be released into surface water as
waste, as has been the case with past mercuiy pollution of
the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers. In some countries,
mercuiy compounds containing phenyl- or methylmercuiy
may still be used as fungicides.
Studies of sediment cores from Minnesota and Wisconsin
lake beds show mercuiy concentrations in lake sediments
significantly increased around 1850 and again between
1920 and 1950. Mercuiy reached these study lakes from
the atmosphere. The rate of increase of mercuiy
deposition in these lakes has been about 1.7 percent per
year over the 140 years since 1850, National and
international efforts to prevent air pollution are needed to
reduce mercuiy contamination of lakes and rivers.
Mercury Chemistry
Elemental mercuiy, the silver metal in theimometeis, is
poorly absoibed from the gut (less than 0.01% is
absorbed). Very large amounts would need to be
swallowed to cause toxicity. When elemental mercuiy is
heated it evaporates. Mercury vapor is easily absorbed by
the lung and is a potential health threat to people who
breathe it. The toxicity of mercuiy vapor is a known
occupational hazard.
In lakes and rivers, elemental mercuiy can be transformed
to methylmercuiy (CHjHg+) by chemical processes and by
the action of bacteria. In contrast to elemental mercuiy,
methylmercuiy is almost completely absorbed by the gut
and is toxic to people.
Methylmercuiy in lakes and rivers is absorbed by tiny
aquatic organisms. Methylmercuiy builds up in the food
chain, accumulating in larger and larger amounts as small
invertebrates are eaten by small fish, which in turn are
eaten by large fish. Methylmercuiy builds up to high
levels in predatory fish that are at the top of the aquatic
food chain. Methylmercuiy accumulates in fish at much
higher concentrations than in the surrounding water. For
example, water contaminated with 2 parts per trillion
mercuiy (2 x 10"12 grams Hg/ml water) can produce levels
of 450 parts per billion methylmercuiy in a northern pike
(450 x 10* grams Hg/g fish). This is a 225,000-fold
bioaccumulation of mercuiy. Bioaccumulation produces
high concentrations of methylmercuiy in the fish people
eat. Methylmercuiy attaches to the protein of fish and
cannot be removed by cooking or cleaning the fish.
Mercury Toxicity
Scientists don't know if methylmercuiy harms the fish in
Minnesota lakes, but they do know that methylmercuiy
could harm humans and wildlife that eat methylmercury-
contaminated fish. Methylmercuiy's toxicity to humans is
an environmental hazard recognized since the late 1950s
when an industiy released mercuiy and methylmercuiy into
waters near Minamata Bay, Japan. Residents of fishing
villages were poisoned by eating highly contaminated fish
from Minamata Bay.
Methylmercuiy is neurotoxic; it affects the brain and spinal
cord. Methylmercuiy is almost completely absorbed from
the gut into the blood, is distributed throughout the body,
and passes into the brain to reach nerve cells. In the
brain, methylmercuiy interferes with the way nerve cells
function.
Symptoms of Toxicity
The earliest obvious signs of methylmercuiy poisoning in
adult humans include tremor of the hands and paresthesias
(abnormal sensations of die lips, tongue, fingers or toes).
At higher levels, walking is affected, followed by blurred
vision and decreased peripheral vision. Severely-affected
patients have speech and hearing problems. If
methylmercuiy exposure continues, a person can become
paralyzed and die. Over 400 people in Iraq died in the
Minnesota Department of Health • Section of Health Risk Assessment • 925 S.E. Delaware St„ Minneapolis, MN 55414 « 612/627-5046
-------
B-40
early 1970s from eating bread made from methylmercuiy-
treated wheat that was intended for planting.
Fetuses are especially susceptible to methylmercuiy. At
high levels of exposure methylmercuiy interferes with the
way nerve cells move into position as the brain develops.
As a result, the brain cannot develop normally. During
the Iraq poisoning, researchers found children exposed in
utero showed delayed development in walking and talking
when.the level of mercury in their mothers' body was
four- or five-fold lower than levels known to cause
symptoms of poisoning in adults. In both the Japan and
Iraq disasters, some mothers who showed few symptoms
of mercury poisoning gave birth to children with severe
mental and physical retardation.
The Dose Makes the Poison
Methylmercuiy toxicity is related to the dose (the amount
taken into the body) and the duration of exposure. While
fish seem to accumulate methylmercuiy throughout their
lives, humans can eliminate methylmercuiy from their
bodies over a period of months. When the amount of
methylmercuiy taken into the body exceeds the amount that
can be eliminated, methylmercuiy builds up in the body.
Methylmercuiy is attracted to sulfur atoms on cells and
attaches to sulfur-rich proteins, such as those in muscle,
throughout the body. At a certain level in the blood,
methylmercuiy harms the cells of the body.
Data relating clinical symptoms of poisoning to mercury
levels in blood and hair come from studies of
methylmercuiy poisoning in Iraq. Paresthesias occured at
blood levels around 200 nanograms mercury per milliliter
of blood (200 ng/ml), which is equivalent to a daily
methylmercuiy intakeof 0.3 milligrams methylmercuiy per
70 kilogram body weight per day. A maternal blood level
four- or five-fold lower is associated with developmental
delays in fetuses.
The Minnesota Department of Health uses a "safe" level of
mercury in the blood 10-fold lower than the blood levels
associated with the first symptoms of toxicity to calculate
meal advice for mercuiy-contaminated fish. Advice on
spacing meals out over time is based on information about
the length of time it takes to eliminate methylmercuiy. By
following the advisoiy, blood levels of mercury would be
kept to less than 20 ng/ml (adult) and 4.7 ng/ml (women
of childbearing age).
Health Studies in Minnesota
In 1977, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a
study of methylmercuiy blood levels in vacationers and
residents of the Crane Lake area of northern Minnesota.
The most highly exposed individuals ate more than one
meal of fish per week during the spring and summer for
the two years preceding the study. Fish from lakes in the
study area had methylmercuiy levels ranging from 0.11 to
2.9 parts per million (0.11 - 2.9 /tg/g). In comparison,
fish from Minamata Bay, Japan, had levels of around 10
parts per million mercury. People in the Crane Lake area
who ate fish had an average blood mercuiy level of 29
parts per billion (29 ng/ml) mercury while non-fish eaters
had an average of 19 parts per billion mercuiy.
More recently, the federal Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registiy measured methylmercuiy in the blood
of bandmembers of the Fond du Lac Band of Chippewa
Indians near Duluth, Minnesota. The highest level
detected was 20 parts per billion in the blood of an
individual who ate fish one or more times per week. That
level declined to 9 parts per billion during the Winter
months when the individual reported eating fish less
frequently. The majority of those surveyed (75%) ate fish
less than once a week. A mercuiy level of 5 parts per
billion in blood is considered normal for the general,
worldwide population. Only 27 % of the study participants
had mercuiy levels above 5 parts per billion.
Neither of the above studies included a physical
examination of the participants. However, clinical studies
conducted elsewhere suggest that the advice used in the
fish advisoiy is protective of people's health.
The Fish Consumption Advisory
Mercury levels of less than 0.16, 0.16 to 0.6S, 0.66 to
2.8, and more than 2.8 parts per million in fish correspond
to meal advice categories of unlimited meals, one meal a
week, one meal a month, and do not eat, respectively.
This advice protects the average, non-pregnant adult who
eats fish all year round. Levels of less than 0.16, 0.16 to
0.65, and more than 0.66 parts per million correspond to
meal advice categories of one meal a week, one meal a
month, and do not eat for women of reproductive age and
young children who eat fish year round. The Minnesota
Fish Consumption Advisoiy provides less restrictive advice
for people who eat fish only a few months or weeks of the
year.
For a copy of the current Minnesota Fish Consumption
Advisoiy, write "Fish Advisoiy," Minnesota Department
of Health, P.O. Box 59040, Minneapolis, MN 55459-
0040 or call 612-627-5423 (the toll free number for calls
from outstate Minnesota is 1-800-657-3908).
To request this fact sheet in another format, call 612-627-
5100. TDD: Minn. Relay Service 297-5353 or toll free
1-800-627-3529.
FFAC26 April 1994
-------
B-41-
Fish Facts
Contaminants in Lake Superior Fish
PCBs and mercuiy are present in many fish collected from Minnesota waters of Lake
Superior. Data are available for fish collected since 1982 from the lake near French
River, Split Rock, Beaver Bay, Terrace Point, Grand Marais and Hat Point (Grand
Portage). Currently, researchers are finding out if there are differences in contaminant
levels in fish collected at major areas along the north shore of Lake Superior and how
contaminant levels have changed through the years. Contaminants in both game fish and
their prey, forage fish, are being studied.
Where do contaminants come from?
Mercury is a naturally occurring metal which recycles between land, water, and air and
enters plant and animal tissue. Scientists think that most mercury now reaching
Minnesota waters was originally released into the air from the burning of fuels and
household and industrial wastes. PCBs are synthetic oils once widely used in a variety
of products and industries. Although they were never intended as food, they enter food
chains because they are easily absorbed by animals. They do not decompose easily and
remain in lake sediments and the bodies of animals and humans for years. Some of the
Great Lakes have fish advisories based on pesticides, but nTfish taken from Minnesota
waters of Lake Superior, these contaminants are not normally detected or are present in
very low levels. While scientists know something about how contaminants reach Lake
Superior, little is known about how for they have traveled before reaching the lake.
How do contaminants get into fish?
Once in the lake, mercury is converted to methylmercury by bacteria. Fish readily absorb
methylmercury from their food and from water as it passes over their gills.
Methylmercury binds tightly to the protein in the muscle of fish. Fish also absorb PCBs
from water and food. PCBs concentrate in the fatty portions of fish and in fatty fish such
as siscowet and lake trout. Older fish and predatory fish accumulate more PCBs and
mercury than younger fish which eat less contaminated food. Although fish also eliminate
contaminants from their bodies, it is a long slow process. In fact, humans appear to
eliminate mercury and PCBs faster than fish can.
How contaminated are Lake Superior fish?
Although very little data on mercury has been collected, Lake Superior fish have low
levels of mercury. Recent data show that less than 5% of the fish tested had mercury
levels of 1 ppm or more (1 ppm is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration level for food
safety for commercially caught fish). In contrast, 14% of the fish tested exceeded the
Food and Drug safety level of 2 ppm PCBs. The Minnesota Department of Health begins
issuing advisories to limit consumption of sport fish at levels well below that of the Food
and Drug Administration. In contrast to sport fish that may be eaten in quantity by just
one family, commercially caught fish enter a large market and large numbers of
contaminated fish are not available to a small group of consumers.
Minnesota Department of Heaith » Section of Health Risk Assessment * 925 S.E. Delaware Sr., Minneapolis, MN 55414 « 612/627-5046
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
B-4?
Lake trout make up most of the Lake Superior fishery and are the most studied-fish in
Lake Superior. The data show that as fish increase in size, FOB levels also increase (see
graph). Researchers believe this is because the older a fish is, the longer it has been
absorbing PCBs from the water and from its diet. And larger, older fish are able to eat
larger, and therefore more contaminated, prey.
PCBs in Lake Trout fillets increase with fish size
a.
Q.
£Z
CO
o
Q.
15-20" 20-25" 25-30"
Fish Size (inches)
Siscowet and lake trout are the most contaminated fish in Minnesota waters of Lake
Superior. These fish have a higher, fat content than rainbow trout (steelhead), coho, or
chinook salmon. PCBs concentrate in fat, and the leaner and younger a fish is, the less
PCBs it contains. Smelt have extremely low levels of PCBs compared to other small but
fatty fish such as lake herring.
Are fish and wildlife harmed by these contaminants?
There are few data on the effects of mercury or PCBs on fish health. Water
concentrations of these contaminants are very low, fish are exposed to greater levels
through the food they eat Laboratory studies show that fish are not obviously harmed
by these low levels in water. But studies have not been done to determine , the effects
of long exposure to low levels of these contaminants. Wildlife that eat fish-cormorants,
loons, otter, and mink-accumulate mercury and PCBs as well as pesticides present in
other Great Lakes. Studies of wildlife populations show that reproduction problems, birth
deformities, tumors and behavioral changes occur in some Great Lakes wildlife that eat
contaminated fish. This association between contaminants and toxicity is under active
investigation by researchers throughout the Great Lakes, including Minnesota.
Fish and your health
Based on the presence of contaminants in many of the fatty species of sport fish, anglers
are advised to limit consumption of most Lake Superior fish. Information on this advisory
appears in the "Minnesota Fish Consumption Advisory" available from the Minnesota
Department of Health.
FF1 - January 1991
-------
For More Information:
All fish that have been tested from Minnesota
lakes and rivers are listed in the current
Minnesota Fish Consumption Advisory
booklet published by the Minnesota Depart-
ment of Health. Call 612-627-5423 (toll
free 1-800-657-3908) to request a free copy
or write:
"Fish Advisory"
Minnesota Department of Health
P.O. Box 59040
Minneapolis, MN 65459-0040
For questions concerning the sources of
contaminants in Minnesota's environment,
call the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
(612)296-6300.
For questions concerning collecting and
testing fish, call the Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources, (612)464-1247.
To request this information in another
format, call 612-627-5100. TDD: Minnesota
Relay Service 297-5353 or toll free 1-800-
627-3529.
B-43
Lake Superior
Fish Advisory:
A Guide to
Your Health
Special thanks to the Great Lakes Sport Fish
Advisory Ifcsk Force, Council of Great
Lakes Governors, for information used in this
advisory and to Jim Amrhein, Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources, for use of
the drawings.
Minnesota Department of Health
925 Delaware St SE
Minneapolis, MN 55414
March, 1994
A sport fish consumption
guide to Minnesota waters
of Lake Superior
Minnesota Department of Health
Minnesota Fish Consumption Advisory
-------
B- U
Using this advisory
Measure your fish from the tip of the nose
to the end of the tail. Find the species and
size of fish you've caught in the table that
follows. The table shows each kind of fish
which has been tested for contaminants. If a
species is not listed, it has not been tested.
At the top of the table, find the meal
advice for the size fish you've caught.
• No Restriction means you can eat as
many meals as you like.
• One Meal a Week (52 meals per year),
One Meal a Month (12 meals per year),
and One Meal Evety Two Months (6
meals per year) is advice for how long to
wait before eating your next meal of sport
fish.
• Do Not Eat means no one should eat
those fish because of very high contami-
nation.
Note that the amount of contaminants in a
fish listed in the "One Meal a Month"
group is four times higher than the amount of
contaminants in a fish listed in the "One
Meal a Week" group.
Meal Advice for Eating Sport
Fish from Lake Superior
One meal is assumed to be one-half
pound of fish (weight before cooking) for a
150-pound person. This meal advice is
equally protective for larger people who eat
larger meals and smaller people who eat
smaller meals. Follow cleaning and cooking
directions to prepare fish.
The meal advice that follows Is for
eating trimmed and skinned fish.
Fish Species
No
Restriction
One Meal a
Week
One Meal a
Month
One Meal Evety
Two Months
Do Not Eat
Lake Trout
<20 Inches
20-27 inches
>27 inches
Siscowet
<20 inches
>20 inches
Chinook Salmon
All Sizes
Coho Salmon
All Sizes
LakcWhitefish
All Sizes
Lake Herring
All Sizes
Rainbow Trout
All Sizes
Brown Trout
All Sizes
Smelt*
All Sizes
"<" menu leu tlimn the length shown and ">" means greater thin the length ahown. "All sizes" means fish of any length.
* No restrictions on uairimmed ymeft cooked with the ikin on.
-------
B-45
A Guide to Your Health
ish are nutritious and good to eat But some fish may take in
m*" contaminants from the water they live in and the food they eat
m Some of these contaminants build up in the fish—and in you—
over time. These contaminants could harm the people who eat them,
so it is important to keep your exposure to these contaminants as low
as possible. This advisory helps you plan whatfish to keep as well
as how often and how much sportfish to eat. This advisory is not
intended to discourage you from eating fish, but should be used as a
guide to eating fish low in contaminants.
Health Benefits
When properly prepared, fish provide a
diet high in protein and low in saturated fats.
Many doctors suggest that eating a half
pound of fish each week Is helpful in pre-
venting heart disease. Almost any kind of
fish may have real health benefits when it
replaces a high-fit source of protein in the
diet You can get the health benefits of fish
and reduce unwanted contaminants by
following this advisory.
Contaminants in Fish
Long-lasting contaminants such as
PCBs, DDT, and mercury build up in fish in
amounts which are a health concern. Health
problems which may result from the con-
taminants found in fish range from small
changes in health that are hard to detect to
birth defects and cancer. Women who eat
highly contaminated fish for many years
before becoming pregnant may have children
who are slower to develop and learn. The
meal advice in this advisory is intended to
protect children from these potential develop-
mental problems. Adults are less likely to
have health problems at the same low levels
of exposure that affect children.
Although this advisory is primarily based
on effects other than cancer; some contami-
nants cause cancer in animals. Your risk of
cancer from eating contaminated fish cannot
be predicted with certainty. Cancer currently
affects about one in every four people by the
age of 70, primarily due to smoking, diet and
hereditary risk factors. Exposure to contami-
nants in the fish you eat may not increase
your cancer risk at all If you follow this
advisory over your lifetime, you will mini-
mize your exposure and reduce whatever
cancer risk is associated with contaminants.
At worst, using Environmental Protection
Agency methods to calculate risk, it is
estimated that approximately one additional
cancer case may develop in 10,000 people
who eat fish according to this advisory over
their lifetime.
-------
B-A6
Special Risk Groups: People who
regularly eat sport fish, women of
childbearing age, and children under six
years of age are particularly susceptible to
contaminants that build up over time. If you
fall into one of these categories, you should
be especially careful to space fish meals out
according to the advisoty table that follows.
Your body can get rid of some contaminants,
such as mercury, over time. Spacing the
meals out helps prevent the contaminants
from building up to harmful levels in the
body. For example, if you eat a fish from the
"One Meal a Month" group, wait a month
before eating another meal of fish from any
restricted category.
Others: Women beyond their childbearing
years and men face fewer health risks from
contaminants such as mercury and PCBs.
However, if you are in this group you should
also follow the advisory to reduce your total
exposure to contaminants. For these groups,
it is the total number of meals that you eat
during the year that becomes important and
many of those meals can be eaten during a
few months of the yeac If most of the fish
you eat are from the "One Meal a Week"
category, you should not exceed 52 meals per
yeac, Likewise, if most of the fish you eat
are in the "One Meal a Month" category, you
should not exceed 12 meals per yean Re-
member; eating one meal of fish from the
"One Meal a Month" group is comparable to
eating four fish meals from the "One Meal a
Week" group.
Cleaning and Cooking
Many contaminants are found at higher
levels in the fat of fish. You can reduce the
amount of these contaminants in a fish meal
by properly trimming, skinning, and cooking
your catch. Remove the skin and trim all the
fat from the areas shown below:
• the belly flap,
• the line along the sides of the fish,
• fat along the back, and
under the skin.
Cut away ad fat
along the back
Remove all skin
MH ^ —
Cut away a V-shaped wedge to
remove the dark tatty tissue
along the entire length of the fillet
Slice off the
belly fat
Cooking does not destroy contaminants
in fish, but heat from cooking melts some of
the fet in fish and allows some of the contami-
nated fet to drip away. Broil, grill, or bake the
trimmed, skinned fish on a rack so the fat
drips away. Do not use the drippings to
prepare broth, sauce, chowder or soup.
These cleaning and cooking precautions
will not reduce the amount of mercury or other
metals. Mercury is distributed throughout a
fish's muscle tissue (the part you eat) rather
than in the fat and skin. Therefore, the only
way to reduce mercury intake is to reduce the
amount of contaminated fish you eat.
Important: You must follow these cleaning and cooking directions.
The Lake Superior meal advice Is for eating trimmed and skinned fish.
-------
B-4?
' '&ZZZS V'S*/""
-'h! ~-7 f «
"* 'V:A.V':' .-"we y* •' ~
N _ v'"wf < ' /
¦"* >\Vr* - !
v r
/
\W J/-' .-
>. t-llr--"
1&V ,-.. \-.W/
ifx
•T>. \ J ,' !
H»\; V /
IL/ \ /
' \o
fi ;W~~
iffi
ihi
tlf
if!*
II
V/-
I
*"M i
/ /
V' \
£
<-7/i
>.. s_
1 \ ^|fv
¦« .. • v J i /• s\»fcS«.
•xpectant
n
= 4
-,—vsHk
C-AK^n /
/ v
I \ *1
H£nk5\f>
A/'?\
wr\®
"
1
fy
/
u Vt j"
**.\: iT""'
tec**"1'
\ teM
^ P
' A \\Ki I
> ! • \f£T
A1®=
DRAFT
-------
B-48
' / ^Udyou know there are harmful contaminants in some fish? This is a special concern if
¦ 'you are pregnant, planning to be pregnant, or nursing a baby. Contaminatedfish may
not look, smell, or taste different. But they can still harm you—and your baby
Don't stop eating fish — it is a good source of protein, and low in saturated fist. You can still get
the benefits of eating fish by wisely choosing - safer types offish - safir places to catch fish - safer
ways to preparefish, and - moderation in how often you eatfish and how much you eat.
-------
Contaminants In Fish Can:
Affect your baby more than they affect you
Be difficult to detect
Cause problems many years after consumption.
** It is best to prevent exposure to fish contaminants in thefirst place.
df^educing Yo>
Your Exposure to Contaminants:
The Four Factors to Consider
Choosing the Type offish
jRsh build up contaminants from the water they live
in and the food they eat. Older or bigger fish have
had more time to build up contaminants in their
lake or river you are fishing, a safer choice may be to
release your catch.
bodies.
Fish that eat other fish also build up mote contami-
nants. Walleye and northern pike, for example,
tend to have high levels of mercury.
/any fish, such as cup and catfish, tend
to have more PCBs. They have more fatty flesh in
which to store the contaminant.
Choosing Where to Fish
While all Minnesota fish have some mercury,
the highest levels are found in fish from northern
Minnesota lakes. PCBs are found in all ma|or liver
systems in Minnesota and some metro-area lakes.
Both mercury and PCB levels may be higher around
cities.
Km can protect yourself by fishing in less contami-
nated waxen. Find our which lakes and fivers have
been tested for contaminants by ordering a copy of
the "Minnesota Fish Consumption Advisory." This
free booklet gives advice on earing fish from over
400 Minnesota, lakes and rivers. To order, call (612)
627-5423 or 1 (800) 657-3908.
Km will know more about the safety of fish from
tested lakes and rivets than those that have not been
tested. If you don't know the safety of fish in the
Choosing Moderation in How Often You Eat
Fish and How Much Fish You Eat
Over rime, your body can rid itself of some contami-
nants. You can help this process by earing smaller
amounts of fish, and eating fish less often.
Some fish in Minnesota lakes and rivets are not safe
for pregnant or nursing women or children under
age six to eat. You can safely eat 7 ounces of bluegill,
sun fish, or crappie each month from Minnesota lakes
and rivers. If you eat more than 7 ounces of these or
other fish in a month, consult the "Minnesota Fish
Consumption Advisory* to find fish types and
locations that axe safe.
Remember, women who may became pregnant
within six years are advised to eat fish the same as
pregnant or nursing women.
Cleaning and Cooking Fish
Afercury cannot be removed from fish. However, the
way you clean and cook fish can make a difference in
the amount of PCBs you eat.
Clean the fish to remove fatty parts (see diagram,
next page.) Broil, grill, roast or steam fish. Frying
breaded fish is not recommended for larger, fatty
fish. Throw away drippings. Do not make soup
with the liquid.
-------
B- 50
)(
C~-S f ow to Clean Fish to Reduce
Your Exposure to PCBs:
Cut along the bone to get just
the meat and skin.
Fit is under the skin. You
cannot see fat in the meat. Cut
off the skin with the fat and far
meat on the stomach of fish.
Use only the meat. Throw away alt other parts
of the fish.
m.
hat About Store-Bought Fish?
The fah or shellfish you buy from your grocety store
or fish market can also contain contaminants.
Although there are laws to limit these contaminants,
not all commercial fish are tested.
Pregnant or nursing women should not cat sword-
fish or shark. Canned tuna have mercury levels
comparable to many Minnesota-caught fish. It is safe
for a pregnant woman to eat up to 7 ounces of tuna
each week — if it is the only source of mercury-
contaminated fish including sport-caught fish, eaten
that week.
Afbit commercial ocean fish, such as shellfish,
flounder, pollack, and cod, are low in PCBs. A
pregnant or nursing woman can safely eat these once
a week.
JRcmcmhct to consider ALL sources of fish you eat
when making your choices.
Can'Take to Protect
^ A^jCYounelfdndYouKMdby:
h •, • -7:^.7*5,
** j'Discuss die fisifa yoix cacwithiyour health
Vcare provider, \ 5 - ~
ji;,. N \ " i
jiOarefully" choose the fish you eat while
£-jou are pregnant or nursing—and for
liberal-jreais before that.
'Make changes in how you eat fish: what
'v-Jand,1from where, how much, how often, and
j'ihow-you. prepare them.
•iy] J:;-~sGet more information from:
;i Siinnesoci Department of Health
:;'925 SE Delaware Street
Box 59040
:l(Minneapolis MN 55459-0040
\^G12) 627-5047
Enjoy fishing and eating good fish!
To request this document in another
format, call (612) 627-5100.
TDD: MN Relay Service 297-5353
or Toll Free 1/800-627-3529.
DRAFT
-------
2. Eatfish which have no chemicals. The fish
in the picture below have very few chemicals
in them and are safe to eat. You can eat
these fish every day.
SAFE
hluegills
crapptes
rock bass
perch
3. Eat fish with harmful chemicals less often.
The fish in the next picture have the most
chemicals in them and it is not safe to eat
these fish every day.
You will not have health problems if you eat
these fish only one time each month. Eat
only the smallest and youngest of these fish.
NOTSAFE
whit J bass
buffalo
sucker
catfish
carp
Do not eat the fat parts of thesefish. Cut off the
fat parts of the fish (look at the picture below)
before you cook the fish. Throw away the fat
or water that fish have been cooked in. Do not
make fish soup.
back fat
side fat
belly fat
ix/UTril MCTI
rloJtl
ARE
SAFE TO EAT?
Minnesota Department of Health
Minnesota Fish Consumption Advisory
627-5046
-------
WHICH FISH ARE SAFE
TO EAT?
Fish are good food and are good for you.
But some fish from lakes and rivers in Min-
nesota may have harmful chemicals in them.
The fish do not taste, smell or look bad; but
the chemicals in the fish may make a person
sick after many months oryears of eating too
many fish which have harmful chemicals.
Protect yourself! Eat fish from lakes or
rivers which do not have harmful chemicals
in them. Eat only the safe parts of a fish.
CHEMICALS IN FISH
Some lakes and rivers may have harmful
chemicals like mercury and PCBs. Mercury
comes from rocks and soils. Mercuiy is also
in the smoke that comes from factories and
cars. PCBs are in oil used by industries.
PCBs enter the air and water from burning
or because the chemicals were not stored
safely.
There arc laws now that say these chemicals
must be stored safely, but some chemicals
are already in the\pterand on the bottoms
of the lakes and rivers of Minnesota and
overstates.
These chemicals move into fish as they swim
in the water. The chemicals are also in the
food fish eat These chemicals stay in the fat
and meat of fish. More and more chemicals
stay in a fish the longer a fish lives in water
with chemicals. JBig and old fish have the
most chemicals in their bodies.
CHEMICALS IN YOU
Mercury and PCBs also stay in vour body
whenyou eat fish. Large amounts of chemi-
cals may make health problems for you.
Large amounts of mercury can change the
way you walk, talk, see, and hear. Both mer-
cury and PCBs can hurt a 6aby before it is
born. The baby may not grow or learn well.
Womenwhoaregoingtohaveababyshould
be careful not to eat too many fish with
chemicals. A doctor can do a test to see if
you have health problems from mercury or
PCBs.
'.VAAha!
PROTECT YOURSELF
1. Eat fish from lakes and rivers which do not
have chemicals. Fish in many parts of the
Mississippi, Minnesota, and St Croix Rivers
are not safe to eat more than once a month.
Fish in most lakes near Minneapolis and St
Paul an safe to eat Call the Minnesota
Department of Health (627-5046) and ask
for the free fish book called the "Minnesota
Fish Consumption Advisory." You will get
a book in the mail that will help you choose
a safe place to fish.
-------
3. Noj cov ntscs itas muaj tshuaj
(Chemical) no kom tsawg me ntsis.
Cov ntses ua muaj duab nyob hauv qab no
muaj tshuaj nyob hauv lawv tub cev ntau
thiab tsis zoo rau nej yuav niaj hnub noj.
Koj kuj yuav tsis muaj mob teebmeem ab
tsi yog koj noj cov ntses no li ib litis ib
zaug xwb. Noj cov tses me me thiab mos
mos xwb.
NOT SAFE
buffalo
white bass
sucker
—-vr\ ^ '
ca,flsh
carp
Tsis txhob noj tej qltov muaj roj
ntawm cov ntsev no.
Muab tus ntses txiav tej qhov muaj muaj roj
tawm (saib raws li daim duab hauv no) ua
ntej nej yuav muab nej tus ntses ua noj.
Muab cov nqatb ntses muaj roj thiab cov kua
nej hau ntses hliv pom tseg. Txob muab cov
kua no los haus.
back fat
side fa!
bell/ bt
Tej co ntses nyob rau hauv cov pas dej hauv
hauv Minnesota no nej yuav noj ib as thiv ib
zaug los kuj tau. Hu xov tooj rau Minnesota
Department of Health (627-5047) nug txog
phau ntawv qhiatxogntses hu ua"Minnesota
Fish Consumption Advisory." Lawm mam
xa phau ntawv no tuaj rau koj kom tuaj pab
qhia koj txog cov ntses nyob qhov twg thiaj
zoo nuv coj los noj. Los yog sau ntawv mus
rau: Fish Advisoiy, Minnesota Department
of Health, P.O. Box 59040, Minneapolis,
Minn. 55459-0040 nug txog "Fish Advi-
sory".
Special thanks to Laurie AUmann, Carpenter
Nature Center; and Touh Xing Yang andDuoa
Yang, Hastings Senior High School.
COV NTSES
TWG THIAJ
ZOO NOJ?
Minnesota Department of Health
Minnesota Fish Consumption Advisory
627-5047
-------
;COV NTSES TWG TIIIAJ
. YUAV ZOO NOJ?
Nls.es yog kliooni noj zoo Ihiab zoo rau neeg
lub c.ev. Tab sis muaj lej co ntses los ntawin
tei (olipas dej thiab tej tus dej nyob hauv
Nlit^epota no yuav tsis zoo noj vim muaj
tshuaj'^chemical) ub no nyob rau liauv lawv
lub dev. Cov ntses uas muaj tshuaj(chemical)
ub lio nyob rau liauv lawv lub cev yuav tsis
tsw phem los yog zoo txa\w hvm yam tsev
thiab yuav noj tsis qab li cas. Tab sis cov
tshuaj (chemical) ub no liauv ntses lub cev
yuav ua kom neeg muaj mob ntau hli los
ntau xyoo tuaj torn qab nej noj cov ntses no.
Txuag koj lub cev. Noj cov ntses uas los
'ntawm cov pas clei thiab tej dej uas tsis muaj
tshuaj (chemical) liauv lawv lub cev. Noj tej
qliov uas zoo noj xwb.
COV TSHUAJ (CUEMICAL)
HAUV TSES LUB CEV.
Ib co pas dej thiab dej muaj cov tshuaj
(Chemical) hu ua "mercury' thiab PCB.
"Mercury" muaj los ntawm tej pob zeb
thiab av los. Ib co "mercury' kuj los
ntawm tej pa tawv ntawm cov tsev ua
haujlwm ub 110 thiab los ntawv lub fais los.
PCB nyob rau hauv cov roj uas lawv siv
nyob rau hauv tsev ua haujlwm loj ub no.
Cov PCB no nkag mus rau ntawm tej huab
cua thiab dej los tawm kev hlawv cov PCB
no los yog los ntawv tej kev khawv cov
tshuaj no cia tsis zoo.
Tam sim no kuj muaj ib cov kevcai hais kom
rieeg khaws cov tshuaj (chemical) no cia
kom zoo, tab si cov tslmaj no twb muaj nyob
rau hauv tej qab tliu dej thiab qab pas dej
nyob rau hauv Minnesota thiab Iwm lub
xeev los lawm.
Cov tshuaj (chemical) no nkag mus rau hauv
cov ntses thaum lawv ua luam dej thiab nyob
rau hauv cov zaub mov ntses noj. Cov tshuaj
no nyob rau ntawm ntses cov roj thiab nqaij.
Cov tshuaj (chemical) no nyob rau hauv
ntses lub cev ntev tshaj tus ntses muaj coi sia
nyob rau liauv cov dg uas muaj cov tsfiuaj
no. Cov ntses loj thiab tses laus muaj cov
tshuaj no nyob rau hauv lawv cov cev ntau.
COV TSUUAJ (CHEMICAL)
IIAUJ KOJ LUB CEV
Cov tshuaj (chemical) mercury thiab PCB
nkag nyob rau koj lub cev thaum koi noj
ntses. Muai tshuaj (chemical) ntau nyob rau
hauv koj lub cev yuav ua kom koj muaj mob
ub no. Yog muaj cov tshuaj mercuiy no ntau
nyob rau koj lub cev, tej zaum koj kev mus
kev, kev hais lus, kev pom thiab hnov ub no
yuav txawv. Cov tsliuaj (chemical) mer-
cury thiab PCB no yuav ua kom muaj
teeomeem rau cov menyuam tseem nyob
hauv plab ua ntej lawv yug. Thaum tus
menyuam yug los tej zaum nws yuav tsis loj
zoo thiab Kawm ub kawm no tau tsis tshua
zoo. Cov poj niam muaj menyuam hauv
plab txhob noj cov ntses muaj tshuaj (chemi-
cal) no ntau ntau. Kws khomob muaj cuab
kav kuaj tau yog koj koj lub cev muaj
teebmeem vim muaj cov tshuaj mercury
thiab PCB no ntau.
TXUAG KOJ LUB CEV.
I. Noj cov ntses Jos ntawm cov pas
dej t/uab dej uas.tsis muaj cov tshuaj
no. Cov ntses nyob hauv tus dei Missis-
sippi, tu dej Minnesota, tus dej St. Louis
thiab tus dej St. Croix no mas jaiav tsis zoo
noj ntau tsnaj ib hlis ib zaug.
2. Noj cov ntses uas tsis muaj tshuaj
(chemical) hauvlawvlub cev. Cov ntses
uas muaj duab nyob hauv qab no muaj tshuaj
me me nyob hauv lawv lub cev xwb thiab
noj yuav tsis muaj teebmeem ab tsi. "Cov
ntses no nej niaj hnub noj lost tau.
SAFE
bluegills
crappies
rock bass
perch
-------
DO YOU LIKE TO FISH?
B-55
Good! Fishing Is fun! But, be careful. Some fish In. Minneapolis/St. Paul lakes have poisons that
make the fish unsafe for you to eat. The fish may not taste, smell or look bad,- but the poisons in
the fish may make you or your child sick after eating them for a long time.
Learn how to protect yourself!
1. Eat fish that are SAFE.
These fish have very few poisons in them and are safe to eat. Most people can eat one meal of these fish 1 time a week.
But pregnant or nursing women and children under age 6 should eat these fish no more than once a month.
bluegill
crappie
rock bass
perch
2. Eat fish that are NOT SAFE less often.
These fish have the most poisons In them. Pregnant or nursing mothers and children under age 6 should never eat these
fish. Others should eat these fish once a month or less. It Is best to eat the smallest and youngest of these fish.
carp
sucker
white bass
catfish
buffalo
3. Do not eat the fatty parts of fish.
Some poisons build up In the fatty parts of fish.
It is best if you cut off the fatty parts before
you cook the fish. Throw away the water that fish
have been cooked In. Do not make fish soup.
4.
Eat fish from safe lakes.
pack fat
Side fat
belly fat
A. Bluegill, sunfish and crappie from
these lakes are SAFE to eat every day.
Big Camel ian (May Township)
Byflesby Reservoir (Randolph Township)
Coon (Columbus Township)
Brno (lake Brno)
Rxest (Forest lake)
Long (New Brighton)
Minnetonka (Minnetonka)
Parley (Laketown)
Rebecca (Hastings)
Snelling port Snelling State Park)
Wasserman (Laketown)
Wirth (Minneapolis)
Big Marine (New Scandia)
Christmas (Shorewood)
Crystal (BurnsviHe)
East Vadnais (Vadnais Heights)
Harriet (Minneapolis)
Medicine (Plymouth)
O'Dowd (Shakopee)
Pickerel (Lilydale)
Rebecca (Greenfield)
Waconia (Waconia)
White Bear (White Bear Lake)
B. Bluegill, sunfish, crappie, pike and
small walleye (less than 20 Inches) frorr
these lakes are SAFE to eat every day.
Big Carnelian (May Township)
Big Marine (New Scandia)
Byllesby Reservoir (Randolph Township)
Christinas (Shorewood)
Coon (Columbus Township)
Crystal (BurnsviHe)
Brno (lake Elmo)
Harriet (Minneapolis)
Long (Long Lake)
Pickerel (Ulydaie)
Snelling (Fort Snelling State Park)
Wasserman (Laketown)
White Bear (White Bear Lake)
Most fish from the Mississippi, Minnesota and St. Croix Rivers in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area, are NOT SAFE to eat.
MmwisoTAPEPAwmBwroFHEAEm « Section of Hemjh Risk Assessment » 925 S-E, Pbiawamb Sr., Minneapolis, Mfrl 55414 « 612/627-5046
Moled on Recycled Paper
9/i
-------
KOJ PUAS NYIAM NUV NTSES?
B-56
Zoo heev! Nuv ntses yeej lom zem kawg! Tiamsis, yuav tsum xyuam xim nawb. MuaJ tej co ntses' nyob
hauv cov pas dej nyob rau thaj tsam Minneapoiis/St Paul uas muaj TSHUAJ LOM NEEG nyob hauv
cov ntses no ua rau cov ntses tsis huv rau sawv daws noj, Tej zaum cov ntses no mas kuj tsis tsw
phem, tiamsis cov tshuaj lom neeg nyob hauv cov ntses no yuav ua rau koj, los yog" koj cov minyuam
muaj mob yog hais tias nej tau noj cov ntses no ntau zaug thiab noj tau ntev los iawm.
Kawm kom koj paub tiv thaiv koj tus kheej!
1. Noj cov ntses uas ZOO NOJ xwb.
Cov ntses no tsuas muaj tshuaj lom neeg ml ntsis xwb mas thiab li zoo noj. Sawv daws feem coob tsuas noj tau cov ntses
no 1 zaug to} ib as thiv xwb. Tiamsis, cov poj niam muaj minyuam hauv plab los yog cov poj niam nyob nruab hi is, thiab
cov minyuam 6 xyoo rov hauv, yuav tsum tsis txhob noj cov ntses no ntau tshaj 1 zaug toj Ib hlis.
bluegill
crappie
rock bass
perch
2. Txhob no] cov ntses uas TSIS ZOO NOJ heev-heev.
Cov ntses no muaj tshuaj lom neeg ntau heev. Cov poj niam muaj minyuam hauv plab los yog cov poj niam nyob nruab
hits thiab cov minyuam 6 xyoo rov hauv yuav tsum tsis txhob noj cov ntses no II. Lwm cov neeg tsuas noj tau cov ntses no
1 zaug toj Ib Wis xwb los yog tsawg tshaj 1 zaug toj lb hlis. Tsis tas li, cov ntses no mas yuav tsum noj cov ntses me-me
xwb thlaj zoo noj mi ntsis.
.agist!
carp
sucker
asgKegss
white bass
catfish
buffalo
3. Tsis txhob noj tej NOAM NTSES ROG.
Muaj tshuaj lom neeg ntau nyob rau hauv cov nqalj ntses rog.
Koj yuav tsum muab tej qho nqaij ntses rog hiais pov tseg tag
ua ntej koj milab coj los ua noj. Cov kua ntses mas yuav tsum
muab pov tseg. Tsis txhob ua kua ntses hauv li.
4. Noj cov ntses uas nyob hauv cov PAS DEJ HUV-HUV xwb.
back fat
side fnt
belly fut
Cov ntses muaj npe hu ua bluegill, sunfish thiab crappie uas nyob hauv cov PAS DEJ npe hu raws li nram no thiaj
ii ZOO NOJ.
Big Camellan (May Township)
Christmas (Shorewood)
Elmo (Lake Elmo)
Harriet (Minneapolis)
MInnetonka (Minnetonka)
Pickerel (Lflydale)
Snelllng fort Spelling)
White Bear (White Bear Lake)
Big Marine (New Scandia) Byllesby Reservoir (Randolph Township)
Coon (Columbus Township) Crystal (Burnsville)
East Vadnais (Vadnais Heights) Forest (Forest Lake)
Long (New Brighton) Medicine (Plymouth)
O'Dowd (Shakopee) Parley (Laketown)
Rebecca (Hastings) Rebecca (Greenfield)
Waconla (Waconla) Wasserman (Laketown)
WIrth (Minneapolis)
Feem coob cov ntses uas nyob rau hauv 3 tug dej toj npe hu ua Mississippi, Minnesota thiab St Croix Rivers nyob rau thaj
tsam MInneapoIls/St. Paul no mas TSIS ZOO NOJ II.
Minnesota PmrogNT Of Emm « Section of Health Risk Assessment « 925 S.E. Deiawake St; Mikxeapous, MN 55414 • 612/627-5046 9/
Moled oa Recycled Paper
-------
The only way to know if there is any
reason to be concerned about contami-
nants in your favorite fishing hole is to
look up the location in the Minnesota
Fish Consumption Advisory. Fish from
over 300 Minnesota lakes and rivers have
beeij tested for mercury, PCBs and other
chemicals-and all are in the booklet.
The Minnesota Fish Consumption Advi-
sory has advice for how often you can
safely eat fish. The booklet shows the
species and the sizes of fish tested. The
booklet lists meal guidelines for vacation-
ers, lake residents, avid anglers and women
in their child-bearing years. Women who
may become pregnant, pregnant women,
nursing mothers, and young children are
especially vulnerable to the harmful ef-
fects of fish contaminants. These indi-
viduals should be sure to consult a copy of
the Advisory.
You can get your free copy of the Advi-
sory by writing or calling the Minnesota
Department of Health, 925 S.E. Dela-
ware Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota
55459-0040, (612)627-5047. Ask for the
"Fish Advisory".
This brochure was produced by the Min-
nesota Department of Health in coopera-
tion with the Minnesota Office of Tour-
ism and the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources.
Feb 1991
Gating Minnesota Fish:
A guide to your health
m
Minnesota Department of Health
Minnesota Fish Consumption Advisory
-------
A Guide to Your Health
Minnesota offers some of the best sport
fishing in the Great Lakes region. Fish
are a low fat source of protein which
may have real benefits - especially if
your concern is heart disease.
But some fish in Minnesota, Ontario,
and all the Great Lakes states store
small amounts of contaminants. Al-
though the levels found are usually low,
large amounts may be harmful. It's a
good idea to follow a few precautions in
consuming fish, particularly if you eat
fish often.
• Selective catch - and - release-
keeping only smaller fish for the table,
and returning bigger ones to water- is
good for your health as well as the
health of the fishery resource. In addi-
tion to tasting better, smaller fish are
relatively free of contaminants.
• Substitute a few panfish meals for
the walleye or northern pike you might
otherwise eat during a long vacation.
Contaminants such as mercury and
PCBs build up in large predatory fish.
Their prey, including panfish such as
perch, sunfish, or crappies, are always
less contaminated.
• Eat smaller meals of big fish, and
eat them less often. Take home part of
your catch to space the meals out over
time.
• Methods of cleaning fish can re-
duce the level of chemicals in some fish
by 20 to 50%. Organic contaminants
such as PCBs and dioxins concentrate
in fat, so skinning and trimming fish to
remove the fatty areas shown in the
diagram below will reduce levels of these
chemicals. Mercury does not concen-
trate in fat and these precautions will
not reduce the amount of mercury in a
meal of fish.
• Broiling, baking or grilling so fat
drips off reduces PCB and dioxin levels
even further. Poaching and deep-fat
frying removes some contaminants--
but discard the broth or oil. Pan frying
removes few contaminants.
back fat
side fat
belly fat
Wisconsin Sea Grant
* Trim away these fatty areas.
Some Minnesota fish should be eaten
in moderation. Exactly how much fish
vou should eat depends on how often
you eat fish and the level of fish con-
tamination.
A person who only eats fish during a
one-week vacation has little to worry
about compared to the person who
eats fish every week during the sum-
mer. We eliminate contaminants from
our bodies, and we do it more effi-
ciently than fish do. But it is a process
that takes time. You can help that
process by simply spacing meals of more
contaminated fish out over time.
-------
v£:-£r''- i:!i~$'¦*.'Vv^ '?'yj^,^,;~':1'"U\
..-.v."*
mmsmi
B- 59
Koj Puas Yog Noj Cov Ntses UasNoj Tau?
G)v ntses hauv qee lub pas dej thiab dej lwuv Minnesota no muaj
ntsuaj thiab qias neeg.
Noj cov ntses no yuav ua rau koj mob. •
Koj yuav tsum nug koj tus kws kho mob'saib yam'ntses twg noj tau.
¦ cs "51 Lj ',
^KS8tslRauissiJw«tsliSHSfiifiiaistasfiR
sstu5is^siatsi?jno«isl?iRS(ugfi.
w^RistjamssfemMsmsiyinfi.
Caj^ArB&ng Co An Toan Khong?
_/ Ca lit nhune/song, ho tai Minnesota co khi bi nhiem doc. ~ • )
Neu ban d/ng ca dabinhiemdoccothelamhaidensucjiecTtnrban. ' / . • —.
Xin!iCMyacbacsicungiadinhbandebietroJc««rnaobancdtl\e dung ! f /
ma k[wig so bi nhiem doc. — /
u u—.tain •
iMdmlwmc
dn^nnun^mjaQtratxrtansiiBSten'iSn'iiJGSiJcOsutnanu.
•munudwuanuswtlulwr^sunusg^'UJ.
lm9nanyn'utiiij!Jsqvi£i0uno!/n'uo'n£iou?KniJ|Jnefin,2n^iJ0ntu.
Are You Eating Safe Fish?
Fisll from some Minnesota lakes and This information provided by:
rivers are contaminated. Eating these : ^ Minn[so„ Depirtmcnt of Hatch:
•fish can harm you. ¦' ¦ 612/627-50-17.
¦¦ ^'-v¦ -: '
1St> |X'."' JV." y"' ^
Provided by the Minnesota Department of Health and supported by funds
from the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and.
" 'liability Act Trust Fund through a coopeuttve-agreemtnt with,';'-- ,
-------
Fishand YouiHmOT
/
&
A
Are Your PAnENT&y*
¦ "With two million licensed anglers in Minnesota, as many as half of your patients
may be eating sport-caught fish. Some of these anglers could be at risk of
developing cancer, or giving birth to children with developmental problems because
of the fish they eat.
¦ There are many benefits of eating fish. Fish is a good source of protein, is low
in fat, and is rich in the omega 3 fatty acids beneficial in the prevention of heart
disease. However, fish in some Minnesota lakes and rivers pose a health risk because
they contain PCBs. The health of special populations who subsist on fish is a
growing concern.
¦ This fact sheet is for health care providers who see patients that may be at high
risk for long-term adverse health effects from eating PCB contaminated fish.
Provided by the Minnesota Department of Health and supported
by fimdsfrom the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act Trust Fund through a
cooperative agreement with Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry, Public Health Service,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
PCBs
Polychlorinated biphcnyls (PCBs) arc a group of209 synthetic chemicals
having varying toxicity. PCBs are stable, fat-soluble substances that are
poorly excreted from the body. PCBs were used widely as coolants and
lubricants in transformers, capacitors, and other electrical equipment. In
1976, PCB production was banned in the U.S. due to evidence that PCBs
accumulating in the environment pose a threat to humans and wildlife.
Although no longer manufactured, these chemicals remain in the environ-
ment due to their stability and resistance to biodegradation.
Exposure Route:
Humans arc exposed to PCBs because these chemicals bioaccumulate in
fish living in contaminated waters. PCBs contaminate Minnesota's waters
because of past use and improper storage of PCBs. Disposal of PCBs at
industrial or municipal waste sites has contributed to the contamination of
some Minnesota lakes and rivers.
Nationwide, PCBs have been found in at least 286 Superfund hazardous
waste sites listed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). PCBs
arc not soluble in water; they are present either in sediment or adsorbed to
suspended particulates. Aquatic organisms ingest and accumulate PCBs
resulting in increasing levels of PCBs in the successive steps of a lake or
river food chain. Levels of PCBs in fish can be a million - fold higher than
the levels in water. The low water solubility of PCBs helps to prevent high
concentrations of these chemicals in drinking water-supplies.
Who's at Risk:
There are some fish-eaters with potentially higher risks of long-term
adverse health effects because of high exposures to contaminated fish or
because they are particularly suseptible to the contaminants in fish. People
who are likely to eat larger amounts of fish than the general population
include; Southeast Asians, Native Americans, sport anglers, and others who
subsist on fish out of financial necessity. Fetuses of mothers who eat
contaminated fish are susceptible to developmental effects due to PCB
exposure.
Health Effects:
Health effects resulting from eating fish contaminated with PCBs are
difficult to evaluate and are a focus of research conducted throughout the
Great Lakes Region. Nearly all humans have been exposed to PCBs
through environmental exposures. Consequently, all persons are likely to
have trace levels of PCBs in their bodies. The link between low-level PCB
exposure and human health problems is not dear and information from
animal testing provides additional means of assessing risks from PCBs.
PCBs are an animal carcinogen and reproductive toxin. Researchers
suspect prolonged exposure to small doses of PCBs has adverse effects on
human fetal development, reproduction, and may promote the growth of
cancer. Based on studies, The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
considers PCBs to be probable human carcinogens.
-------
;etal Development and Reproduction Effects:
Lesearch in the last decade indicates the potential health risks from PCBs
re highest for the developing fetus. A study conducted by Fein, Jacobson,
taL, on 242 women who ingested PCB-contaminated fish from
-ake Michigan for at least six years prior to pregnancy, found that
he women delivered babies with significantly lower than normal birth
weights, smaller head circumferences and, based on the Ballard examina-
ion, shorter gestational age and poorer neuromuscular maturity [1],
rhey found in utero exposures, but not postnatal exposures, were linked
o delayed development measured at birth, seven months, and four years
if age. A woman can transfer large doses of PCBs direcdy to her fetus
vhilc pregnant, and then later her infant can receive additional PCBs
hrough her breast milk. Studies are available that address PCBs in breast
nilk [2], [3]. The cautious approach is to tell women to reduce their
xposure to PCBs during nursing.
kute Exposure:
Vcute exposure to PCBs in fish is not a primary health concern because it
loesn't result in acute health effects. The PCB levels which must be eaten
o cause acute health effects are much higher than what fish could
uxumulate. Acute health effects from high levels of PCBs have occurred in
ases of occupational and accidental exposures. Chloracne is the only
mown overt sign of acute PCB toxicity in adults.
Dhronic Exposure:
?CBs have a biological half-life of one year or moft. Chronic exposure
o low levels over long periods can result in significant body burdens.
B-61
Medical Evaluation of PCB Exposure:
There are tests available to measure PCBs in blood, adipose tissue and
breast milk. However, these tests are expensive ($50.00 per test), are not
routine clinical tests, and only indicate if the patient has been exposed to
PCBs. The measurements cannot determine the level of exposure, type of
PCB, duration of exposure, or whether a patient will develop adverse health
effects. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
recommends that testing should be evaluated carefully when PCB exposure
is suspected to have been at high levels or when PCB exposure from breast
milk is a concern. PCBs detected in breast milk are not always an indica-
tion that breastfeeding should be discontinued. There is no specific
treatment for PCB toxicity; therefore, the only treatment is to prevent the
PCB exposure.
Communicating Risk to Patients:
The health professional plays an important role in providing information to
patients about exposure to contaminants in fish and the potential health
effects to the developing fetus and infant. Health professionals can assess
their patient's potential health risks by questioning and evaluating their
patient's fish consumption patterns. Although fish can provide nutritional
benefits, anglers need to be aware of the health risks associated with some
species of fish from certain waters. Health providers can assist patients in
managing their health risks by recommending use of the Minnesota
Department of Health's Minnesota Fish Consumption Advisory. The
advisory has detailed guidelines for how often fish can be safely eaten from
lakes and rivers that have been tested for contaminants.
Reduce die Ride
When advising your patients, the Minnesota Department of Health suggests these guidelines:
¦ Eat panfish rather than predator fish.
¦ Eat small game fish rather than laige ones.
¦ Eat fewer fatty fish (carp, catfish, lake trout.)
¦ Trim skin and fatty areas where some contaminants accumulate.
¦ Advise women of child bearing age, pregnant women, nursing mothers, and young children
to select their catch or meals carefully.
¦ Refer to the Minnesota Fish Consumption Advisory for the lakes and rivers in Minnesota
that have been tested for contaminants.
References:
1. Fein G.G., Jacobson J.L, Jacobson S.W., Schwartz P.M.. and Dowler J.K. Prenatal Exposure to Polychlorinated Biphenyls:
Effects on birth size and gestational age. Journal of Pediatrics. 1984; 105:315-320.
2. Rogan W.J., Bageniewska A., Damstra T. Pollutants in Breast Milk, N Engl J. Med. 1980:302:1450-1453.
3. Gladen B.C., Rogan W.J., Hardy P., Thullen J„ Tingelstad J., Tully M. Development after exposure to polychorinated
biphenylsand dichlorodiphenyl dichloreoihane rransplaccntally and through human milk. J Pediatr. 1988; 113:991-995.
To request this document in another format call:
612/627-5100. TDD: Minnesota
Rday Sen-ices: 6! 2/297-5353
or call Toll Free: 1/800/627-3529 (in Greater Minnesota)
Other Sources of Information:
For further information regarding contaminants in fish.
Contact the Minnesota Department of Health:
612/627-5047.
ATSDR Case Studies in Environmental Medicine:
self-instructional educational materials to guide physicians
Mid other health professionals through the diagnosis,
treatment and surveillance of persons exposed
to hazardous substances.
For more information call Patricia Poindexter, Division
of Health Education. ATSDR: 404/639-6205.
ATSDR Toxicolocical Profiijls available on over 150
chemicals. For copies or further information call ATSDR.
Division ofToxicology: 404/639-6300.
MDH 6m
-------
FishandYour Health
n Minneapolis
iy fish in tl)e Minnesota River and the Mississippi-River
Minneapolis and St PattlJmE NOTsafeto^t.
Fish in MOST LAKES n£r MinueO^uand St. Paul ARE safe to eat.
Safe Fish to Eat
The fish in this picture
ARE SAFE fish to cat. You
can eat these fish every day.
These fish contain fewer
pollutants than the fish
pictured on the next page.
Eat smaller SAFE fish
rather than larger ones.
Bluegills
Rock Bass
Crappies
Perch
What are Pollutants?
Some Minnesota lakes and rivers have pollutants in them. Pollutants come
from factories, waste sites, and cars. Pollutants get into lakes and rivers through the
air, water, and ground. Most Minnesota fish are good for you, but some kinds of fish
haw pollutants like mercury and PCBs.
Mercury is a poison that cm make it hard for a person to walk, talk, see and hear.
Babies with mercury poisoning do not walk as soon as the)- should.
PCBs are poisons that make people sick and can cause cancer after many years.
Babies with PCB poisoning may have trouble learning.
Some Fish Have Pollutants
Rain and snow earn* pollutants in the air down into the lakes and rivers. Tinv animals
in the water eat the pollutants. When small fish eat the tinv animals thev eat the
pollutants and the pollutants go into the small fish. Big lish ear many small fish and
the 1% fish end up with the most pollutants.
* Polluted fish do not look sick. They feel, move, and taste the same as safe fish.
• Larger, older, and fatty fish (white bass, and carp) in rivers have
the most pollutants.
Pollutants In Fish Can Make You Sick
Pollutants stay in your body when you eat polluted fish. Pollutants in fish can make
people sick, but only after many months or years of eating them. A man, woman,
child, or baby may not act sick, but may Ik* sick in ways you cannot easily see.
Pregnant Women
Provided In the Minnesota Dcp.irmum of Health and supported by funds
ftiim ihcOtmpu'lk-nMW I'.mmmmetK.il Response. Compensation and Liability Act Trust l-'und
liinmiili .t itMijxT.nUc with Agency for Toxic Substances ami Oisease Regis!iy.
Public Health .Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services".
Women of child hearing age, pregnant women, nursing
mothers, and young children should not eat polluted fish.
Pollutants in fish go into the blood of mothers and into
the baby growing inside her. A doctor can do a blood test
to see if you are sick from mercury or PCBs.
Choose Safe Fishing Places
and Eat Safe Fish
Fish from polluted lakes and rivers are not safe to cat. Lakes
and rivers in or near cities are more polluted than lakes
and rivers in the country.
* Do not drink the water from any lake or river.
It can make you sick.
• Bring water from home to drink.
The only way to know which lakes and rivers have safe and nor
safe fish is to ask your county or city health department, clinic
or doctor. These people can help you choose safe places to fish
and can give you more information on eating safe fish.
Free Book
You can get a free fish book called the "Minnesota
Fish Consumption Advisor) ." This book can help you
choose sad* places to fish. For a copy, in English, call
the Minnesota Department of Health: 612/627-5047-
-------
Fish that :\rc Noi
Safe to [{at
In rivers, fish in ibis picture arc imt
sale to cat.
In lakes, these fish are safer so cat.
If you must eat these fish from
rhe rivers, cat only one meal offish
a month and cut off and throw
away the fait}' part-, of the fish
before cooking.
White Bass
BulKtiu
( . I • f i
Suckers
.... ^
Cleaning Fish:
By cleaning thefish, you can rake away some of the pollutants and make fish safer to eat.
It's important to remove the guts and throw thetn aivay.
Clean the fish as shown in the stej>s below.
Cut along the bone to get
just the meat and skin.
Fat is under the skin. Cut off the skin with
die fat and throw awav.
Z) • You cannot see fat in meat. Cut off
and throw awav meat on the stomach
For More Information in English about Pollutants
in Fish and Eating Safe Fish:
call: Count)- or City Health Department
or Minnesota Department of Health, telephone: 6l2/62"7-504
or writes Fish and Your Health (CES)
Minnesota Department of Health P.O. Box 59040
Minneapolis, MN 55-»59-0040
To Request this Document in Another Format call:
612/627-5100. TDD: Minnesota.
Relay Services: 612/29~-5353
or call Toll Free: 1/800/627-3529 (in Greater Minnesota.)
JL * Use only the meat,
throw away all other parts of the fish.
Remember:
To fish in Minnesota, you must buv a fishing
license. Children and adults need h> wear a lite jacket
when fishinsi Irum shore or .1 horn.
MDH C»rt3
-------
B-6#
1 ft S-
U
ftj 2 fii n
**" iptiu]psisi$ii 9i§isBtJ(gmssfis vMrij/urimfi,
qtivstfriistifintitmru usiy^fltfimi is^
ipjslrjaua/nntias tsiBms^mtifinnmiu »w[Tjjwsitimms:im:0w i
{pfumjnctT]iciistmm
gistjjnstfifi
yijslqajtHe: th(jifaniw
sioi])]Gis i gnHiojgifitnfinftfid i
j)i«iMe:siBdiqp9rifioth»(ji
fwiUFisjtJislarirogio *i
Oflljitymotifltjisfanraisjtjna
Do tiidinn)i{jifanreisnjnfln
IT^Sni
^ticnw
JpfflC—
iriHi8lditiinui3n?
5nsn9i5g:i8ii288M{jiij^(U(innsdinjji3m^Bi i tiinjpsntel
qaijijmisinaturiHjfimsatfliqansSiiei^nlg i wgrnnnn
mQtnfnMcunBiiirodiirafinihBimmsdifitjim^nmro flftjtjms i
wiiMfif saf a njHi s|pnj
satgi^f uwqi standi n
[fjfdnjBnfraasastsfannnfidinyian HsmMnnfT^tyra t nasa
8t§(dfinei^aBisi3ns(j]aBi8din{ji3nn58dianasa aigfumtsi
irretf&os i
* qBfl8nmn»nnBag9tsnfligwnmotf9ttranfiBois
* lyBSnanfoiumnnd:
BttjpaidrfngtufdnjtnoSadi uatmsnmmsiji gisntnB tiinjfisri
nif'wilfiijjaMswcirats^atJiaisB sa ifg^jtinnrowgn i
gnsiajsrmogmgririMfifsacytBBj t&Arisjp tuiannogninntns
ftiBJ8j(inminji^fil(ugis9R taw i
Hnmo98(utftjj
-------
[fitftfuttstufijriuffli
U is -~i
jfi 01 Aitt HH ill
Uirifjiuiiininjirinniniuiiimtfunn'jfiiti
-------
3H3H tMVX HO 3TI4VXS
B-66
FISH ADVISORY MAILING LIST
Minnesota Department of Health
925 SE Delaware Street
P.O. Box 59040
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55459-0040
-------
Survey
Please help us understand how people use the fish advisory. For each question,
circle the appropriate answer.
1. Does the fish advisory help you ia choosing fishing locations?
YES NO DONTKNOW
2. Doe* die fish advisory help you ill deciding how much fish you could eat?
YES NO DONTKNOW
3. Does the fish advisory help you in learning how to clean and cook fish?
YES NO DONTKNOW
4. How often do you eat fish caught by you, relatives or friends? Answer for the
current fishing season.
~
none
~
less than 1 meal a month
~
1 meal a month
~
2 or 3 meals a month
~
1 meal a week
~
more than twice a week
5. If you eat fish, how much fish do you usually eat in a typical meal? Please
respond only for yourself. Check the most appropriate answer.
I I less than 1/4 pound (4 ounces or 113 grams)
I I 1/4 pound (4 ounces)
I I 1/2 pound (8 ounces or 22? grams)
I I 3/4 pound (12 ounces)
I | one pound (16 ounces)
I I more than one pound (16 ounces or 454 grams)
6. Please look at the Lake Superior table on page 76 and let us know if you find
the table more or less useful than the symbols that are used for the other lakes and
rivets in die booklet.
~ more useful because;
f~l less useful because:
Upcoming Advisories
If you would like to receive future issues of the Minnesota Fish Consumption
Advisory through the mail, please fill out the form below. You will be placed on
our mailing list If you are already on our mailing list, please help us keep it
current by listing any changes in your address.
Nam
Street Address _______
City. State, Zip Code
~ TOsis a corrected address
We welcome your comments concerning the advisory. Please use die space below
to tell us what you think of the advisory program.
If you have any questions please call 612-627-5047. Please send this form to:
FISH ADVISORY MAILING LIST
Minnesota Department of Health
925 SE Delaware Street
P.O. Box 59040
Minneapolis, Minnesota 554S9-0040
-------
1994 MN Fishing Regulations
B- 68
Fish Consumption Advisory
FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORY
The Minnesota Department of Health gives advice
for eating fish from over 400 locations in Minnesota.
Meals of some fish from these waters should be limited
because of chemicals that might be in the meat.
A booklet listing current fish consumption advice is
available from the Minnesota Department of Health,
(612) 627-5423, toll-free number: 1-800-657-3908; the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, (612) 296-6300; or
the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, (612)
296-2835. The advisory booklet covers only lakes and
rivers that have been tested for contamination.
New Advice for Lake Superior
Lake Superior's most commonly caught fish—lake
trout, salmon, and herring (cisco) have fat that accumulates
PCBs. Careful trimming and booking removes half the
fat—and PCBs—of fish. This advice for trimmed, cooked
Lake Superior fish Is the result of a recent collaboration
among Minnesota and the other Great Lakes states. For
Minnesota, the change means that more fish can be safely
eaten. Detailed meal guidelines for Lake Superior fish are
available from the Minnesota Department of Health.
Chemicals of Concern
Mercury enters waters throughout the state naturally
and by way of air pollution from sources such as coal-
burning power plants and garbage incinerators. Although
mercury can damage an adult's nervous system, its most
severe effects are on'developing fetuses in pregnant women.
In lakes with high concentrations of mercury, large preda-
tor fish such as walleye, northern pike, and lake trout
contain the highest levels. The highest levels of mercury
contamination are in northern Minnesota, where the
Minnesota Department of Health advises no more than 1
meal per month of fish taken from some lakes. More fish
can be safely eaten if the fish are only consumed a few
months of the year. Mercury accumulates in the muscles of
fish, and cannot be removed by cleaning or cooking.
PCBs are found in fish in major river systems, near
and downstream from metropolitan areas, and in Lake
Superior, PCB levels have dropped since the production
of these industrial chemicals was banned in 1976, but
they continue to persist in the environment. PCBs can
damage infants and developing fetuses in pregnane women,
and may cause cancer in adults. Highest PCB accumula-
tions are in fatty fish such as lake trout, aurp, buffalo, and
catfish, and in older predator fish such as large walleye
and large northern pike. On parts of the Minnesota and
Mississippi Rivers, the Minnesota Department of Health
advises no consumption of these fish.
Reducing Your Risk
« Eat fish species that are less contaminated. PCBs build
up most in fatty fish such -c carp, catfish, and lake
trout. Mercury levels are highest in large predatory fish
such as walleye and northern pike. Species such as
perch, sunfish, and crappie have the least amount of
contaminants.
« Keep smaller fish for eating. Younger fish have had less
time to accumulate contaminants.
• Reduce meal size and frequency. Anyone who eats
freshwater fish more than once per week, especially
those species listed above, could be at some risk.
• Remove PCBs by properly cleaning, trimming, and
cooking fish. This chemical concentrates in the fat of
fish. By removing the fat when you clean and cook
fish, you can reduce your exposure to PCBs by 20
percent or more. Remove all fat from turtle meat.
Should You Eat It?
In almost all cases, anglers can safely eat any fish they
choose to take home. However, the Department of
Health recommends yoUng children, pregnant women,
women of child-bearing age, and anglers who fish just one
or two waters exclusively to space meals of some fish over
specified periods of time. For more information to help
you decide where to fish, what fish to eat, and how often
to eat fish, see the Department of Health's fish consump-
tion advisory booklet.
Cleaning Your Catch
Remove the skin and fatty tissue, shown in black
below. Also, discard all entrails, skin, and liver. Discard
broth if fish is poached.
-------
&
&
Guidelines for
Eating Fish
from Georgia Waters
Produced by:
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Protection Division and
Wildlife Resources Division
20S Butler Street, S.E., Strife 1152
Atlanta, Georgia 31334
to
I
-------
DRAFT
Fulling is a popular pastime in Georgia, Whether you go alone to
relax and enjoy nature, with your friends to enjoy camaraderie and
"fish tales," or with your family to pass on a sport you learned as a
child, fishing is a fun and rewarding sport enjoyed by many people. Not
only does fishing give people an excuse to get away from the hustle and
bustle of daily life, but it can also put a healthy, satisfying meat on the
table. Fish is low in saturated fat, high in protein, and can have substan-
tial health benefits when eaten in place of other high-fat foods. The
quality of sport fish caught in Georgia is very good; however, polychlori-
natcd biphenyls (PCBs), chlordane, and mercury have been found in some
fish from a few bodies of water. In most cases, the levels of these chemi-
cals are low. However, to ensure the good health of Georgia anglers, the
Georgia Department of Natural Resources has developed guidelines for
how often certain species of fish can be safely eaten. It should be noted
that these guidelines are based on the best scientific information and
procedures available. As more advanced procedures are developed, these
guidelines may change. Also, it is important to keep in mind that these
calculations are based on eating fish with similar contamination over a
period of 30 years of more. These guidelines are not intended to cause
panic or to discourage people from eating fish, but anglers should use
them as a guide for choosing to eat fish from Georgia waters.
What contaminants are found in Georgia's fish and
where do they come from?
The Georgia Department of Natural Resources has one of the most
progressive fish testing programs in the Southeast. A variety of different
fish species were tested for 43 separate contaminants, including metals,
organic chemicals and pesticides. Many of these contaminants did not
appear in any fish; however three contaminants were present in a few
species from some bodies of water. This publication provides you with
information on those three contaminants.
The three contaminants that showed up in some fish from some
Georgia waters are PCBs, chlordane and mercury.
DRAFT
In some areas, fish are contaminated with low concentrations of
PCBs, which stands for polyehlorinated biphenyls. It is now illegal to
manufacture PCBs; however, in the past, these synthetic oils were used
regularly as fluids for electrical transformers, cutting oils, and carbonless
paper. Although they were banned in 1976, they do not break down easily
and remain in lake sediments for years. It is not known how long these
PCBs take to break down, but over time levels of PCB contamination will
decrease.
Some species of fish in the Chattahoochee River Basin contain
chlordane. Chlordane is a man-made pesticide used in the U.S. from the
late 1940's to the early 1980's. Historically, chlordane was used as an
agricultural pesticide, but in 1978 it was restricted to termite control use
only. It has since been banned for all uses. Chlordane is persistent in the
environment and may remain in lake sediments for up to 20 years.
Mercury is a naturally occurring metal that recycles between land,
water, and air and enters plant and animal tissue. It is not known where
die mercury in Georgia's fish originated. Mercury may be present in fish
because of the mercury content of soils and rocks in the southeast, from
municipal and industrial sources, and fossil fuel use. It is also possible
that mercury contamination is related to global atmospheric transport.
How do contaminants get into water and fish?
Contaminants get into water as a result of stormwater runoff, indus-
trial and municipal discharges, agricultural practices, nonpoint source
pollution and other factors. When it rains, chemicals from the land are
washed into the water. Contaminants are carried down the streams, rivers
and creeks into lakes and reservoirs. Lakes act like a sink because they
collect whatever flows into them from the streams and rivers that feed
them. Since water does not move as much in lakes, contaminants can
build up more than they can in fast-flowing waterways like streams and
rivers. f
-------
DRAFT
Contaminants can get into fish in a variety of
ways. Fish absorb PCBs and chlordane from
either water, suspended sediments, or their food.
Both of these chemicals concentrate in the fat of fish and in fatty fish
such as carp and catfish. Cleaning and cooking a fish to remove fat will
lower die amount of PCBs and chlordane in a fish meal. Larger, older
fish and fish which cat other fish may accumulate more contaminants than
smaller, younger fish. Contaminants arc not usually detected in panfish
such as crappie and blucgill.
Once in the water, mercury is converted to methylmercury by bacteria
and other processes. Fish absorb methylmercury
from their food and from water as it passes over
their gills. Mercury is bound to proteins in fish
tissue, including muscle.
How does the sampling work and what is the
Department of Natural Resources doing to address
fish contamination?
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is committed to protect-
ing Georgia's rivers, streams, lakes and other waters. Both PCBs and
chlordane have been banned, and, over time, the levels of these chemicals
are expected to decrease. The Department has begun this progressive
sampling program to evaluate problem areas and to protect public health
by giving people the information they need to make decisions about eating
fish from different waters, DNR's fish testing program will be ongoing.
Testing on additional lakes and riven will be balanced with retcsting of
waters where changes may be occuring. Since contaminant levels in fish
A change very slowly, sampling the same species of
fish from the same locations over time will allow
DNR to document changes and trends in
contamination levels.
Georgia has more than 71,000 miles of rivers
and streams and more than 421,000 acres of
lakes. It will not be possible for DNR to sample
every stream and lake in the state. However,
high priority has been placed on the 26 major reservoirs, which make up
more than 90% of the total lake acreage. Waterways listed in this guide
will continue to be sampled as part of a five year rotating schedule to
track any trends in fish contaminant levels. The Department has also
made sampling fish in rivers and streams downstream of urban and/or
industrial areas a high priority. In addition, DNR will focus attention on
areas which are frequented by a large number of anglers.
Most lakes and rivers contain a wide variety of fish and selecting
which species of fish to test is important. In general, DNR samples fish
that are top predators (high in die food chain) and fish that feed on the
bottom. For this reason, laigemouth bass and channel
catfish, when present, are the primary species
tested. Hybrid bass are also tested in areas with
good fisheries for this species. Smaller fish, such
as crappie, bream and shellcracker, are tested in
secondary studies after the larger target fish haw bten tested.
This is because smaller fish accumulate contaminants slower and in
smaller amounts than larger fish and bottom feeders.
In order to prevent future contamination, the Department seeks to
identify pollution sources and to work with industries, cities, farmers and
others to reduce the threat posed by pollutants. In many cases, this means
implementing new technologies or practices that eliminates the creation of
contaminants and thus the need to dispose of or discharge these chemicals
State laws have tough restrictions and penalties for discharge of toxic
substances. DNR is responsible for enforcing these
laws in Georgia and for ensuring compliance
with these regulations.
DRAFT
w
-------
DRAFT
In addition, individuals can play t rate in preventing contamination of
Georgia's waters by disposing of chemicals, such as oil, antifreeze, paint,
and other contaminants, in a proper manner. In order to protect Georgia's
waterways from future contamination, individuals, industries, farmers and
others groups must learn to modify their day-to-day activities and work to
create new technologies to eliminate the causes of pollution, DNR will
continue to work closely with these groups to improve water quality in
Georgia. In addition, planning, regulations, facilities modernization,
public education and a variety of other activities will play a major role in
protecting Georgia's waters for future generations.
What are the health benefits of eating fish?
Fish provide a high protein, low fat diet which is low in saturated fats.
Many scientists suggest that eating a half-pound of fish a week can help
prevent heart disease. Fish may have substantial health benefits when
they replace a high fat source of protein in the diet. These pidelines arc
based on a range in fish meal size from 4 to 8 ounces (1/4 to 1/2 pound).
In areas where meal advice is limited to 1 meal per month or week, you
may prefer to haw two smaller meals over that same time period.
What are the health risks of eating contaminated fish?
These guidelines were designed to protect you from experiencing
health problems associated with eating contaminated fish. PCBs, chlor-
dane, and methylmercury build up in your body over time. It may take
months or years of regularly eating contaminated fish to accumulate levels
which would affect your health. It is important to keep in mind that these
guidelines are based on eating fish with similar contamination over a
period of 30 years or more. Current statistics indicate that cancer will
affect about one in every four people nationally, primarily due to smoking,
diet and hereditary risk factors. If you follow Georgia's consumption
guidelines, the contaminants in the fish you eat may not increase your
cancer risk at all. At worst, using U.S. EPA's estimates of contaminant
potentcy, your cancer risk from fish consumption should be less than 1 in
10,000.
PCBs can cause infant development problems in children whose
mothers were exposed to PCBs before becoming pregnant. This con-
sumption advice is intended to protect children from developmental
problems. PCBs can also cause changes in human blood, liver and
immune functions of adults. Some forms of PCBs also cause cancer in
laboratory animals and may cause cancer in human, but these guidelines
. are designed to prevent this from happening.
Exposure to chlordane has been linked to health effects on the nervous
system, the digestive system, and the liver. These effects have been seen
in people who swallowed chlordane mixtures. Chlordane has also been
shown to cause cancer in laboratory animals given high doses and may
cause cancer in humans. These consumption advisories should protect you
from health problems due to chlordane.
Small amounts of methylmercury can be safely eliminated by your
body but larger amounts may damage die nervous system. The fetus is
especially sensitive to mercury poisoning. The consumption advice
provided is intended to protect you from mercury poisoning.
How do Georgia's fish compare with other states?
Georgia has one of the most extensive fish monitoring programs in the
Southeast. This is not because Georgia has highly contaminated fish, but
because DNR has made a serious commitment to thoroughly evaluate fish
quality and provide detailed information to the people of Georgia. A
comparison of data collected on fish tissue contamination in Georgia with
data on fish tissue contamination in surrounding states reported in U.S.
EPA's "National Study Of Chemical Residues In Fish" indicates that the
quality of fish in Georgia's lakes is similar to that in other southern states.
DRAFT
-------
DRAFT
General Guidelines to Reduce Your Health Risk
Keep smaller fish for eating. As a general rule, laiger, older fish may 1%
more contaminated than younger, smaller fish. You can minimize your
health risk by eating smaller fish that are within legal size limits and
releasing the larger fish to be caught again.
Vary the kinds of fish you eat. Contaminants build up in large predators
and bottom-feeding fish, like bass and catfish, more rapidly than in other
species. By substituting a few meals with panfish, such as perch, sunfish
and crappie, you can reduce your risk.
Eat smaller meals when you eat big fish and eat them less often. If you
catch a big fish, freeze part of the catch and space the meals from this fish
out over a period of time.
Clean and cook your fish properly. How you clean and cook your fish
can reduce the level of contaminants by as much as half in some fish.
Some chemicals have a tendency to concentrate in the fatty tissues of fish.
By removing the fish's skin and trimming fillets according to the following
diagram, you can reduce the level of chemicals substantially. Mercury is
bound to the meat of the fish, so these precautions will not help reduce
this contaminant.
baek fat
side fat
belly fat
TVim away these fatty areas
Remove the skin from fillets or steaks. The internal organs (intestines,
liver, and so forth) and skin are often high in fat and contaminants.
Trim off the fatty areas shown in black on the drawing. These include
the belly fat, side fat, and the flesh along the top of the back. Careful
trimming can reduce some contaminants by 25 to 50%.
Cook fish so fat drips away. Broil, bake or grill fish and do not use the
drippings. Deep-fid frying removes some contaminants, but you should
discard the oil once you have cooked the fish. Pan frying removes few, if
any, contaminants.
Using These Guidelines
Check the following pages for the area where you fish. The lakes and
rivers on the list are arranged in alphabetical order. If your fish or fishing^
location is NOT in the booklet, follow the General Guidelines to Reduce
Your Health Risk on page ???. (add this number when lay out complete)
If your fish or fishing location is in the booklet, it does not necessarily
mean that there is a contaminants problem, only that the fish have been
tested. Meal advice will depend on what contaminant(s) were found and
how much was found in different kinds and sizes of fish. Follow these
instructions carefully.
Measure fish from the tip of the nose to the end of the tail fin.
Turn to the page where your lake is listed. Find the species
and size of fish you caught. If there is no frequency listed for a
particular size fish, that size has not been tested or this size fish is
illegal to harvest and keep.
DRAFT
-------
DRAFT
Listed below are the different frequencies of meal consumption
that are safe for different species and sizes of fish.
no restriction
I meal per week
1 meal per month
do not eat
For the purposes of these guidelines, one meal is assumed to
range from 1/4 to 1/2 pound of fish (4-8 ounces) for a ISO pound
person. Subtract or add 1 ounce of fish to the range for every 20
pounds of body weight. Fix- example, one meal is assumed to be
3-7 ounces for a 130 pound person and 5-9 ounces for a 170
pound person.
Special Notice for Pregnant Women, Nursing Mothers,
and Children
If you plan to become pregnant ui the next year or two, are pregnant
now, or are a nursing mother, you and your children under 6 years of age
are especially sensitive to the effects of some contaminants. For added
protection, women in these categories and children should limit consump-
tion to a greater extent than recommended in the tables. For example,
if the table recommends:
no restriction
I meal/week
1 meal/month
do not eat
pregnant women, nursing
mothers and children should
limit consumption to:
no restrictions
1 meal/month
do not eat
do not cat
For more information
For more information on fish consumption in Georgia, contact the
Georgia Department of Natural Resources.
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Protection Division
205 Butler Street, S.B., Suite 1152
Atlanta, OA 30334
(404)656-4713
Department of Nalural Resources
Wildlife Resources Division
2123 U.S. Hwy. 278, S.E.
Social Circle, GA 30279
(404)918-6418
~ ~ ~
DRAFT *
-------
DRAFT
Georgia Lakes Fish Consumption
Guidelines
Lake Allatoona
Species
Less than 12
inches
12-16 inches
Over 16
inches
Chemical
Grapple
No
Restrictions
Carp
1 meal per
week
1 meal per
week
1 meal per
week
PCB's
White Bass
1 meal per
week
PCB's
Largemouth
Bass
No
Restrictions
1 meal per
week
PCB'S
Lake Btackshear
Species
Less than 12
inches
12-16
inches
Over 16
Inches
Largemouth
Bass
No
Restrictions
Spotted
Sucker
No
Restrictions
No
Restrictions
Lake Blue Ridge
Species
Less than 12
indies
12-16
Inches
Over 16
inches
White Bass
No
Restrictions
Channel
Cattish
No
Restrictions
No
Restrictions
Lake Burton
Species
Less than 12
Inches
12-16 Indies
Over 16
Inches
Largemoulh
Bass
*No
Restrictions
No
Restrictions
White
Catfish
No
Restrictions
No
Restrictions
Channel
Catfish
No
Restrictions
'Only largemouth bass 6 Inches and longer may be legally retained
and possessed on Lake Burton. All other largemouth bass caught
from the lake must be released Immediately.
Carters Lake
Species
Less than 12
Indies
12-16
inches
Over 16
Inches
Channel
Catfish
No
Restrictions
No
Restrlctluns
Walleye
No
Restrictions
DRAFT
i
Ln
-------
A Fishing
Advisory for
Arkansas
Effective July, 1993
LOUISIANA BORDER
Areas with Fish
WWiiWWI Advisories*
Elevated levels of mercury have been found in fish flesh in South Arkansas, Advisories
limiting consumption of fish caught in contaminated areas have been issued by the
Arkansas Department of Health.
Pregnant women, women who plan to get pregnant, women who are breastfeeding,
and children age 7 years or younger are considered at high risk for health effects
due to mercury exposure and should not eat fish from advisory areas.
Persons who eat fish from advisory areas occasionally are not at risk for health effects
from mercury. This includes people who vacation around and do not regularly fish in
advisory areas,
* Lake Columbia in Columbia County is not shown on this map bat is under this health
advisory. It is important to note that the areas above represent health advisories issued
effective July, 1993 and that testing is continuing for additional affected areas in South
Fish Consumption Advisories
Effective Ju!y, 1993
Advisory Area
Level of Cousumotfon
Predators
Non-
Rredators
Lake Columbia (Columbia County)
No mors than 2 meals per
month, /to restrictions- on
large mouth bass less than
16 Inches In length.
No
restrictions
Cut-off Creek (from where the creek
crosses Highway 35 in Drew County
to Its confluence with Bayou
Bartholomew)
No more than 2 meals
per month.
Do not
consume
Bayou Bartholomew (from where it
crosses Highway 35 In Drew County to
its confluence with Little Bayou in
Ashley County)
No more than 2 meals
permonth.
No
restrictions
Big Jphnson Lake (Calhoun County)
No more than 2 meals
permonth.
No
restrictions
Snow Lake (Calhoun County)
Do not consume
No
restrictions
Grays Lake (Cleveland County)
No mom than 2 meals
permonth.
No
restrictions
Moro Bay Creek (from Highway 160 to
Its confluence with the OuachitaRiver)
Do not consume
No
restrictions
Champagnolle Creek (to Include Little
Champagnolle from Highway 4 to its
confluence with the Ouachita River)
No more than 2 meals
permonth.
No
restrictions
Ouachita River (from Smackover
Creek to the Louisiana border)
Do not consume
No more
than 2
meals per
month.
Ml ox-bow lakes, backwaters, overflow
lakes, and bar ditches formed by the
Ouachita River below Camden to include
waters in Felsenthal Wildlife Refuge
Do not consume
No more
than 2
meals per
month.
Saline River (from Highway 79 in
Cleveland County to the Ouachita River)
No more than 2 meals
permonth.
No more
than 2
meals per
month.
Saline River (below Highway 160)
Do not consume
No
restrictions
Predator species include bass, pickerel, catfish, crappie, gar, bowfin, etc.
Non-predator species include bream, dram, buffalo, red-horse, suckers, etc.
A meal consists of 8 ounces of fish.
All areas affected by these advisories have been closed to commercial fishing. Fish
mr»Krmp> fn. tv» l. -----
-------
B-77
State of Kansas
Joan Finney, Governor
Department of Health and Environment
Robert C. Harder, Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 10, .1993
Contact: Mindee Reece-Chaudhry, KDHE
(913) 296-5565
Bob Matthews, KDWP
(316) 672-5911
The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) and the Kansas Department
of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP) have issued several new fish consumption advisories effective
immediately.
KDHE and KDWP recommend that consumption of bottom feeding or bottom dwelling
fish (common carp, blue catfish, channel catfish, flathead catfish, freshwater drum, bullheads,
sturgeons, buffaloes, carpsuckers, or other sucker species) from the following locations be
avoided due to levels of the insecticide chlordane:
1 The lower Kansas River from the lnterstate-435 highway crossing (Holliday) to
the confluence with the Missouri River in Kansas City, Kansas (Johnson and
Wyandotte Counties). Since 1987, a "no consumption" advisoiy has been in
effect for the lower 10.5 miles of the Kansas River. The new advisoiy applies to
the lower 18 miles of the river.
2. Antioch Park Lake (south) in Antioch Park, Overland Park/Merriam (Johnson
3. Cow Creek and major Cow Creek branches within the City of Pittsburg and Cow
Creek downstream of the City of Pittsburg to the City of Lawton (Crawford and
Cherokee Counties).
KDHE and KDWP recommend a limitation of one (1) five-ounce meal per month (or
twelve (12) five-ounce meals per year) on the consumption of any bottom feeding or bottom
dwelling fish (common carp, blue catfish, channel catfish, flathead catfish, freshwater drum,
bullheads, sturgeons, buffaloes, carpsuckers, or other sucker species) from the following
locations due to the insecticide chlordane:
4. The Arkansas River within the City of Wichita and downstream to the confluence
with Cowskin Creek southeast of the City of Belle Plaine (Sedgwick and Sumner
Counties).
5. The Little Arkansas River from the Main Street bridge immediately west of the
City of Valley Center to the confluence with the Arkansas River in the City of
Wichita (Sedgwick County).
-MORE-
County).
Landon Sim* Office Building. Topeka, 66S12-1290 • Forfeea Raid. Building 740. Topeka. 66620-0001 • Millc Building. 109 SW 9th. Topeka, 66612
-------
B.-78
Consumption Advisory - 2
6. Cowskin Creek within the City of Wichita and downstream to the confluence with
the Arkansas River southeast of the City of Belle Plaine (Sedgwick and Sumner
Counties).
7. Cow Creek within the City of Hutchinson and downstream to the confluence with
the Arkansas River (Reno County).
8. The mainstem of the Blue River, from the U.S. 69 highway crossing to the
Kansas-Missouri state line (Johnson County).
9. The Kansas River from the City of Lawrence (below Bowersock Dam)
downstream to the City of Eudora (Douglas and Leavenworth Counties).
10. The mainstem of Kill Creek, from the confluence of Spoon Creek to the Kansas
River (Johnson County).
11. The Cottonwood River within the City of Emporia and downstream to the
confluence with the Neosho River (Lyon County).
According to KDHE and KDWP, these fish consumption advisories do not mean that
"Kansas" fish are unsafe to eat. The "typical" person fishing in Kansas probably spends most of
his or her time fishing at lakes and farm ponds, since most streams in the state are privately
owned and access is limited. Lakes, and particularly non-urban lakes, do not appear to have
bottom feeding or bottom dwelling fish with significant chlordane contamination. So, for most
people, chlordane contamination is not a great issue.
People who should be most concerned are those who fish in urban areas and utilize the
catch as a large part of their diet. These people may fish frequently or may occasionally stock a
large supply for the freezer.
Not all urban streams in Kansas have been monitored, but a general correspondence
between urban areas and fish with elevated chlordane levels has been observed. KDHE and
KDWP recommend that people dependent on fish from any urban stream as a large part of their
diet should limit consumption to one (1) five-ounce meal per month (or 12 (twelve) five-ounce
meals per year). The correspondence between urban areas and chlordane contamination in fish
appears to be greater in streams than in lakes.
-30-
93-326\fishadv.pr
(Note to reporters: Additional background information is attached. Maps of specific locations
are available upon request.)
-------
B-
Consumption Advisory - 2
6. Cowskin Creek within the City of Wichita and downstream to the confluence with
the Arkansas River southeast of the City of Belle Plaine (Sedgwick and Sumner
Counties).
7. Cow Creek within the City of Hutchinson and downstream to the confluence with
the Arkansas River (Reno County).
8. The mainstem of the Blue River, from the U.S. 69 highway crossing to the
Kansas-Missouri state line (Johnson County).
9. The Kansas River from the City of Lawrence (below Bowersock Dam)
downstream to the City of Eudora (Douglas and Leavenworth Counties).
10. The mainstem of Kill Creek, from the confluence of Spoon Creek to the Kansas
River (Johnson County).
11. The Cottonwood River within the City of Emporia and downstream to the
confluence with the Neosho River (Lyon County).
According to KDHE and KDWP, these fish consumption advisories do not mean that
"Kansas" fish are unsafe to eat. The "typical" person fishing in Kansas probably spends most of
his or her time fishing at lakes and farm ponds, since most streams in the state are privately
owned and access is limited. Lakes, and particularly non-urban lakes, do not appear to have
bottom feeding or bottom dwelling fish with significant chlordane contamination. So, for most
people, chlordane contamination is not a great issue.
People who should be most concerned are those who fish in urban areas and utilize the
catch as a large part of their diet. These people may fish frequently or may occasionally stock a
large supply for the freezer.
Not all urban streams in Kansas have been monitored, but a general correspondence
between urban areas and fish with elevated chlordane levels has been observed. KDHE and
KDWP recommend that people dependent on fish from any urban stream as a large part of their
diet should limit consumption to one (1) five-ounce meal per month (or 12 (twelve) five-ounce
meals per year). The correspondence between urban areas and chlordane contamination in fish
appears to be greater in streams than In lakes.
-30-
93-326\fishadv.pr
(Note to reporters: Additional background information is attached. Maps of specific locations
are available upon request.)
-------
B- 80
FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORY
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES FOR AVOIDING
CONSUMPTION OF FISH CONTAMINANTS
All Types of Contaminants:
Larger-older fish may have accumulated higher levels of contaminants than smaller-
younger fish.
Fish in streams at locations upstream of urban areas. The fish within and immediately
downstream of urban areas usually have elevated levels of chlordane.
When fishing In urban areas fish in lakes. In general, fish in urban lakes have been
found to be dither free of detectable chlordane levels or have much lower levels of
chlordane than stream fish.
PCBs and Pesticides in general, including chlordane:
Bottom feeding or bottom dwelling fish contain greater levels of contaminants such as
PCBs and pesticides than do fish like bass, sunfish, crappie, walleye, or trout.
Consume only muscle tissue. Avoid consuming fish organs, eggs, or skin.
"When cooking fish, grill, bate, or broil the fish so the fats can drip away. When
frying, do not reuse the oil from one cooking to another. When poaching, do not use
the broth.
PCBs and many |>esticides including chlordane are concentrated in fat tissue. Trimming
away 1/2 inch strips of meat along the length of the back and the dark lateral line (dark
lines along the sides) as well as the belly flesh will reduce the amount of fat consumed
and should reduce the amount of contaminant consumed (see illustration, dotted lines).
Chlordane:
FILLET
-------
B-81
CHLORDANE
The insecticide (tenniticide) chlordane is widely detected in freshwater fish in the United States.
At least 21 states, including Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa, and Oklahoma, have some form of fish
consumption advisories due to chlordane. In Kansas, chlordane is detected in nearly 100
percent of whole fish samples, and in streams in urban areas chlordane is commonly detected
in fillet (edible) samples. Particularly in more recent years, chlordane was used primarily as
a residential termite control and preventative. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) suspended the registration of chlordane in 1988. The registration was suspended not
because of accumulation in fish tissue, but because it was believed the application posed a direct
threat to humans following termite treatments of homes.
No fish have ever been found in Kansas with contamination at levels which could cause acute
or short-term health affects. Consumption advisories are based on concerns over possible
cancer risk and noncarcinogenic toxicity such as liver damage from long-term fish consumption.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Since 1987, a "no consumption" advisory has been in effect for the lower 10.5 miles of the
Kansas River. The new advisories extend this area to approximately 18 miles. Formerly,
"consumption limitations" less restrictive than those being proposed were in effect for the
following waterbodies: the Kansas River from the City of Lawrence to the City of Eudora
(1986-1988); the Arkansas River within the City of Wichita city Emits (1986-1988); and the
Little Arkansas River within the City of Wichita city limits (1986-1989). The new advisories
reinstate the consumption limitation advisories for all of these waterbodies.
A word of explanation:
As KDHE, EPA, and other states have engaged in intensive monitoring of fish tissue quality,
much has been learned about the distribution of chlordane-contaminated fish and the variability
and quality of fish tissue data. Past KDHE fish consumption advisories were issued and
rescinded with less data than the advisories which are currently being proposed. This would
in many ways be similar to conducting a nationwide opinion poll by questioning only 200
people rather than the customary 1,000-1,500. Given the variability in fish tissue data from a
given locality, confidence in the average level of contamination grows with the number of
samples analyzed.
During the time since the last fish consumption advisories were issued much has changed in
terms of guidelines for evaluating the significance of fish tissue data. Risk assessment
techniques have been applied and potential cancer causing and non-cancer causing endpoints of
toxicity have been considered. Risk assessment, as it has been applied in these proposed
advisories, (one in 1,000,000 in the case of carcinogens) are conservative (protective of
consumers). While such risk assessment techniques may be criticized as too conservative or
unrealistic, their primary purpose is to make people aware of the data KDHE has collected and
provide a wont case risk estimate for those who are most concerned about their health, and
then provide guidelines as to how they may still consume fish while reducing or eliminating the
risk.
FISH ADVISORY CRITERIA
Minimum data requirements for issuing a fish consumption advisory for a specific waterbody
include: a minimum of three duplicated composite (three to six fish each) fillet samples of a
representative species of bottom feeding fish collected over a three-year period, and an average
level of the contaminant in excess of the level of concern. Most advisories will be issued with
considerably more data including larger numbers of duplicate or triplicate samples, split samples
between different laboratories, multiple species of fish, and more than three years of sample
-------
B-82
collection. Lifting or changing an advisory will require a reduction of the contaminant to an
average'level of contamination below the level of concern for at least a three-year period.
The data used in the fish consumption advisories is based solely on fillet (edible) samples with
the skin removed. Samples used in determination of average "total chlordane" were analyzed
by EPA Region VII and KDHE laboratories. Samples were collected by KDHE, EPA Region
VII, and the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks.
The threshold average concentration of total chlordane (sum of isomers) used for the "no
•consumption" fish advisory is 0.1 mg/Kg (=parts per million, ppm) wet weight.- This 0.1
mg/Kg level for total chlordane is the functional equivalent of the 0.3 mg/Kg Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) Action Level for technical chlordane in commercial fish. Average total
chlordane concentrations less than 0.1 mg/Kg with more than SO percent of data points in excess
of 0.1 are included. The actual goal is prevention of consumption in excess of a one in
1,000,000 cancer risk rate. The "no consumption" water bodies also exceed total chlordane
levels which could cause noncarcinogenic-toxic effects at consumption rates of less than three
(3) five-ounce meals per week.
The fish "consumption limitation" advisories also have the goal of prevention of consumption
in excess of a one in 1,000,000 cancer risk rate. Water bodies in these categories have a lesser
degree of contamination but it is recommended that caution be exercised in the amount and
frequency of consumption. These wateibodies have total chlordane fish tissue levels which
could cause noncarcinogenic toxic effects at rates of consumption greater than three to seven
(3-7) five-ounce meals per week. The locations of advisories for which fish consumption should
be limited to one (1) meal per month have average total chlordane concentrations ranging from
0.03 mg/Kg to less than 0.1 mg/Kg with less than 50 percent of measurements in excess of 0.1
mg/Kg. Also included in this category are "all urban streams" as an acknowledgement of the
general trend observed in chlordane fish tissue contamination. Due to limited resources, there
are streams which have not been specifically investigated.
UNCERTAINTY OF RISK ASSESSMENT
Risk-based criteria are very conservative by nature. They represent a worst case scenario of
uncertain probability. Assuming that the downward extrapolation from a few dose animal
feeding studies is correct, that the resultant upper bound, 95 percent confidence limit
carcinogenic potency factor for chlordane is correct, and that carcinogenesis in humans is
probable, then the following assumptions provide additional layers of conservatism. First, an
average level of contamination must be determined. Several samples collected over multiple
years usually have considerable variability. If one or two data points out of a total of six or
eight represent high levels of contamination, then the average may be pulled up a great deal.
The probability of encountering fish with the "average level of contamination" has an
uncertainty. Second, the lifetime exposure assumption assumes the level of chlordane in fish
will remain unchanged for a lifetime, whereas it will likely decrease over time as the chlordane
remaining in soils and sediment is gradually degraded or transported downstream. Third, the
assumption that levels measured in raw (uncooked) fillet samples is the same as that which will
be consumed is unlikely. Some studies show a partial loss of fat soluble contaminants during
the cooking process. Other studies indicate that trimming away the most fatty portions of the
fish also reduces the level of fat soluble contaminants. There is evidence to indicate that less
than 100 percent of the chlordane consumed is retained by the body.
TO REITERATE WHAT THIS MEANS TO THE FISHING PUBLIC
These advisories do not mean that all Kansas fish are unsafe to eat. The "typical" person
fishing in Kansas probably spends most of his or her time fishing at lakes and farm ponds.
Lakes, and particularly non-urban lakes, do not appear to have bottom feeding or bottom
dwelling fish with significant chlordane contamination. So, for most people, chlordane
contamination is not a great issue.
-------
B-
People who should be most concerned are those who fish' in urban areas and utilize the catch
as a large part of their diet. These people may fish frequently or may occasionally stock a
large supply for the freezer. People dependent on fish from urban streams as an important
part of their diet should fish upstream of urban areas or should consume fish from urban
streams less frequently and follow the recommended guidelines.
-------
B-84
-------
B-85
-r'X. „ ...;»• Missouri Department of
'.0. Box 570, Jefferson City. MO 6510;
For Immediate Release:
Monday, May 13, 1991
Contact:
Mark Roebuck
Public Information Officer
314/751-6062
State Health Officials Issue New Advisories
for CMordane-Contaminated Fish on Rivers, Lakes
JEFFERSON CIIY, MO. — Hie Missouri Department of Health today issued new and
revised health advisories on fish from Missouri's rivers and lakes. The advisories are
primarily based on fish sampling completed by the Missouri Department of
Conservation during 1990 and the previous two years. Fish samples were analyzed for
chlordane and other contaminants.
"WeVe tracked chlordane in fish for several years now and, even though its use was
banned in 1988, it continues to be a source of concern." said state health director Dr.
John R. Bagby.
Bagby explained that chlordane was once widely used for termite control around
buildings and to control other insects on crops, particularly com. Once applied, it
lasted 20 years or more. "That's one of the reasons it was very useful as a termitielde,"
said Bagby. "But, that is also why there is still a lot of it around in the soil in both urban
and rural areas." Rain runoff carries contaminated soli particles into lakes and rivers,
making small amounts of the chlordane available for fish to absorb.
Bagby said that chlordane may damage the nervous system, digestive system, and liver,
if taken to large enough doses. It also has produced cancers in laboratory animals. The
health department is continuing studies which will help determine If advisories are
effective in minimizing human exposure, Bagby said.
He emphasized that there Is no immediate threat to human health and that the concern
is only for long-term exposure. He stated there should be no concern over swimming,
boating, or catch-and-release fishing in any of Missouri's waters. Bagby added that
most lakes and rivers tested In the state did not show high contaminant levels.
The health department uses a three level advisory system. "Level I" means chlordane
levels have been found to be less than the level of concern. However, heavy consumption
of certain species may still cause significant exposure. "Level O" means some of the fish
tested have elevated chlordane and the department recommends limiting consumption
to one meal per month or less. "Level III" means that most of the fish tested have been
found to be contaminated and should not be eaten. The advisories are for specific
species of fish in specific lakes or river systems and apply only to that species In the
designated area.
A summary table and major river map are included to help locate and explain the
advisory areas. The conservation department is continuing tests of fish In Missouri
waters and the health department will update the advisories each year, incorporating
both new contamination data and the latest health effects information.
# # # #
-------
B-86
1991 Chlardcme Advisory.... page 2
Summary of 1991 Cfalordane Health Advisory for Missouri Waterways
Level I: Fish sampled do not contain elevated chlordane levels.
Level II: Consumption of specified species should be limited to one meal a month.
Level III: Specified species should not be eaten.
Area
Mississippi River
Level
Species
Miles
Confluence of Des Moines River
to Lock & Dam 20 (Canton)
III
II
Channel Catfish
Carp
19
Lock & Dam 20 (Canton)
to Lock & Dam 21 (Quiney, Hi.)
Lock & Dam 21 (Quincy, Hi.)
to Hwy 1-270 bridge (St. Louis)
I
II
all 18
Carp, Channel Catfish,
Buffalo 135
Hwy 1-270 bridge (St Louis)
to Hwy 51 bridge (Chester, 111.)
Ill
Carp, Channel Catfish
81
Hwy 51 bridge (Chester, IB.)
to the Arkansas state line
n
Carp, Channel Catfish
226
Confluence of Illinois River
downstream to state line
III
Shovelnose
Sturgeon & Eggs
343
Missouri River
Above Kansas City
all
181
Kansas City (Hwy 1-635 bridge)
to Sibley (Santa Fe bridge)
III
Bigmouth Buffalo, Carp,
Channel Catfish, River
Carpsuckers
38
Sibley (Santa Fe bridge)
to the mouth of the Missouri river
II
I
Carp, Channel Catfish, 336
Shovelnose Sturgeon
Paddlefish
-------
B-87
2 991 Cydordane .Advisory .... page 3
Area
Other Bodies of Wafer
Level
Species
Blue River from the Kansas border III
to the mouth of the river
Blue River Road Lake in Kansas City n
Creve Couer Lake III
Englewood Lake to Kansas City 0
James River (Wilson Creek to Ptaey Creek} I
III
Lake Buteo in Knob Noster n
Lake of the Ozarks III
Lake of the Woods In Kansas City II
Lake Taneycomo I
Lake Tapawingo in Jackson County III
Lakewood Lake In Lakewood Park II
Little Blue River I
Mark Twain Reservoir m
Meramec River and tributaries from III
Hwy 141 bridge to river mouth
Osage River in Bates County H
Pleasant Hill Lake in Cass County III
Prairie Lee Lake in Kansas City III
Ritter Spring in Greene County II
Salt River below Clarence Cannon Dam III
Sehuman Park Lake in Phelps County II
Smithville Reservoir III
Spring River, Lawerence County III
Verona to Hoberg (Dioxin)
Swift Ditch in New Madrid County III
Swope Park Lagoon in Kansas City II
Table Rock Lake III
Terrace Lake in Kansas City 11
Truman Reservoir I
Wilson Creek III
Carp, Channel Catfish
Carp
Carp, Channel Catfish
Caip
Carp, Channel Catfish, Flathead
Catfish
Paddlefish, Paddleflsh Eggs
Channel Catfish
Paddlefish, Paddlefish Eggs
All
All
Channel Catfish
Carp
All
Channel Catfish
All
Channel Catfish
Carp
Carp, Channel Catfish
Carp
Channel Catfish
Channel Catfish
Channel Catfish
All Species
Buffalo, Caip
Carp
Paddlefish, Paddlefish Eggs
Channel Catfish
All
Carp, Channel Catfish
-------
1991 Chlorckme Advisory .. . . page 4
1991 Chlordane Health Advisory
for the Missouri & Mississippi Rivers and Other Bodies of Water
^^Sibley
Kansas City
Canton
Quincy, ill.
Rocheport
Jefferson City
Weldon
Spring
Tiuman
Rasavofr
Lake of
thoOzarks
[-270 Bridge, St. Lou
Chester, III.
Level! — No restrictions
Level II — Limit consumption
Level 111 — Do not eat specified fish
Table Rock
Lake
See page 3 for other lake advisories
-------
FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORY
The Alabama Department of Public Health has
issued a fish consumption advisory for Choccolocco
creek from the confluence of Snow creek and
Choccolocco creek, south of Oxford, to where
Choccolocco creek flows into Logan Martin. The
Department recommends persons avoid eating all
fish caught from this area. Several species of fish
were found to have levels of polychlorinated
biphenyls over the Food and Drug Administration
tolerance level.
W
I
00
V0
-------
NOTICES CATCH AND RELEASE ONLY
Water from the creek entering this pond has over
time carried a once commonly used insecticide called
chlordane. It was banned in 1988. This insecticide
has settled into the pond's bottom sediments and has
found its way into the tissues of bottom-feeding fish.
Consumption of large quantities of these fish may be a
health risk.
The catch and release regulation will allow
recreational fishing while providing for your safety.
DO NOT EAT THE FISH FROM THIS POND
JOHNSON COUNTY PARK & RECREATION DISTRICT
-------
B- 91
906-475-9977
-------
WARNING
JULY 1993
DO NOT EAT FISH
CAUGHT IN TOWN BRANCH OR THE MUD RIVER
FROM THE HANCOCK LAKE DAM TO GREEN RIVER.
THESE FISH ARE A POTENTIAL HEALTH RISK
AS THEY ARE CONTAMINATED WITH PCBs pSZT).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT
THE BARREN RIVER HEALTH DEPARTMENT
AT (502) 781-2490.
W
j.iauuttcofp.jCCk I
> (awvS3 MS
-------
B-93
¦¦¦ SSi m E BSfift. ¦ MM ¦ U
Ten Mile River Fish
Fish Contaminated With Lead
DO NOT SAT
(Portuguese)
Toxico Com Chubo
Nao-fe Come
(V!»tnam»#«)
^ ' «*• /S AJ A
CA Bj CHI NHiEM-DOC
KNONG AN €?UOC
(Cembodtwn}
{inus^tiuoA
MOTfiM
* i
For tfflMlfo^atton, contact;
WlaBBefoftusettt, &&f>«itmant of Public Health 617-727-0049
Dap&rtftient Of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Environmental Law EnforeementSI 7-360-4470
oapiaftrftismt *>f Environmental Qualify Engineering 017*292-5616
i < ¦ n - —. ¦ " pm t
-------
WARNING
Fish taken from this body of water may contain elevated levels of mercury that
can be harmful to health. It is believed that the source of the mercury is natural
geological mercury in the rocks and soils of the area and, possibly, past mining
activities. The Oregon Health Division (OHD) and
County Health Department advise you to limit your eating of these fish as
1. Pregnant women, nursing women and children up to six years of age should
not consume any fish from this body of water; and
2. Children older than six years and healthy adults should limit their consumption
of fish from this body of water to no more than one half pound (8 ounces) of
fish per .
If you have questions about this advisory please call
County Health Department at (503) or the Oregon
follows:
Health Division at (503) 731-4015.
-------
AD V ERTEN CIA
Peces que se saquen de esta fiiente de agua pueden estar contaminados con
niveles elevados de mercurio que pueden ser daninos para la salud. Se cree que el
origen del mercurio es de las rocas y suelo de esta £rea, posiblemente debido a
actividades mineras en el pasado. La Divisi6n de Salud de Oregon (Oregon
Health Division - OHD) y el Departamento de Salud del Condado de (County
Health Department of) recomiendan
que se limiten del consumo de estos peces a:
1. Mujeres embarasadas, mujeres que esten lactando y ninos hasta los seis anos
de edad, no deben de comer ningun pez de esta fuente de agua, y
2. Ninos mayores de seis anos de edad y adultos saludables deben limitar el
consumo de peces de esta fuente de agua, a no m£s de media libra (8 onzas) de
pescado por .
Si tiene preguntas acerca de esta advertencia, por favor llamar al Departamento de
Salud del Condado de al (503) o
al Departamento de Salud de Oregon al (503) 731-4015.
-------
B-96
Should You Eat
Your Michigan
SPORT FISH?
By Dr. James Bedford
Eating fish is a very healthy choice.
Fish are very nutritious, low in calo-
ries, and an' excellent source of protein.
Their flaky flesh is low in fat, and even the
oilier species such as lake trout have much
lower levels of fat than lean beef.
Fish are especially low in saturated fats,
but they are high in omega-3 fatty acids.
These unsaturated fatty acids may reduce
the risk of heart disease by lowering the
level of cholesterol in your system and in-
hibiting the process of atherosclerosis.
In spite of all the beneficial reasons for
eating fish, we are constantly warned to
either limit consumption or not eat many
Michigan sport fish species. The reason for
these warnings are chemical contaminants
which are found in our trout, salmon, bass,
walleyes, catfish, and other game fish.
PCBs, organochloriee pesticides, and mer-
cury are the most common contaminants of
the fish. Nursing mothers, pregnant wo-
men, women who intend to have children,
and children age 15 and under are especial-
ly advised to restrict their consumption of
contaminated fish since many of these che-
micals can accumulate in our bodies and
can be passed from mother to infant.
Relatively high levels of these contami-
nants are found in fish because the chemi-
cals become more and more concentrated
as we move up the food chain. In addition,
these compounds can enter the fish from
the water by passing through the gills as
the fish breathes. Most of the fish conta-
minants are very persistent in the environ-
ment and are hydrophobic and lipophilic.
This means that the chemicals will move
out of the water and into fats at every op-
portunity. Couple this with their resistance
to breakdown and it is easier to understand
why a few parts per trillion in the water can
result in contaminated fish.
Even though organochlorine insecticides
such as DDT, chlordane, and dieldrin have
been banned in this country and all of the
uses and production of PCBs have been
discontinued, these chemicals continue to
linger in the environment. A large per-
centage of these chemicals along with
mercury enter our lakes and streams from
the air, making their control very difficult.
In most cases, though, levels of contam-
inants are going down, albeit more slowly
than we would like. We can help speed
this process by decreasing the amount that
gets into the atmosphere via incineration
and volatilization.
Despite the presence of these contam-
inants, we can still enjoy eating Michigan
fish. We can choose species to eat which
Joseph Mazner with steelhead taken on
Pere Marquette River, Releasing the
lunkers will lower your potential ex-
posure to toxic .contaminants.
mriiKiun<)t r<*"i
-------
B-97
tend to have lower levels of contaminating
chemicals. In the case of the lipophilic con-
taminants, we can avoid high levels by
choosing fish with a very low fat content
such as walleyes, northern pike, black bass,
and yellow perch. Picking fish for the table
that are lower in the food chain, such as
bluegills and smelt, rather than the top
predators helps to avoid all types of con-
taminants. It is also prudent to eat a varie-
ty of species from different bodies of water
rather than concentrating on one type of
fish from one lake.
Taking smaller fish home to eat and
releasing the lunkers will also lower your
potential exposure to toxic contaminants.
The smaller fish are usually younger and
have a lower fat content with the net result,
in most cases, a lower body burden of con-
taminants. The smaller fish are also usual-
ly better tasting than the large, older fish.
Keep a camera handy on your fishing trips
and photograph the big fish you catch prior
to release. This will make it easier to slide
that hawg bass or trophy trout back into the
water. In addition to lowering the possibili-
ty of exposure to chemicals, releasing large
fish is likely to improve the fishing, espe-
cially in warmwater lakes.
Another way to avoid contaminants is to
fish in bodies of water that are known to
be relatively free of the toxic chemicals that
bioconcentrate in fish. Information is pro-
vided on lakes and rivers with known con-
tamination problems in the "Michigan
Fishing Guide" that comes with your li-
cense. While there are exceptions, bays,
rivers, and lakes with little or no industry
on their shores are less likely to contain
contaminants at harmful levels. Background
or natural levels of mercury can cause pro-
blems in some lakes, but it is hard to iden-
tify these without chemical analyses.
Once you have captured that mess of fish
for the table you can further reduce the
PCB and organochlorine levels by the way
you dress and cook the fish. Remember that
these compounds concentrate in the fat so
that removal of the fat from the fish will
reduce the contaminant level.
Fat tends to be concentrated in and under
the skin, along the lateral line which runs
lengthwise along die side of the fish, along
the base of the dorsal fin, and in the belly
meat. Except for the belly flaps, the areas
of high fat content are darker in color and
have poor flavor. Cut these parts out and
discard when you dress or filet your catch.
Further removal of fat can be accom-
plished through cooking. Broiling, grilling,
and baking on a rack all allow the fat to be
drained away from the fish. Poaching or
salt boiling will also remove fat provided
that you discard the cooking liquid. Like-
wise, deep frying your filets in vegetable
oil will draw out the contaminant-laden fat.
DECEMBER 1990
Be sure to drain away and dispose of the
cooking oil. Additional information on
cleaning and cooking fish can be found in
the booklet, "Eating Great Lakes Fish,"
which is available from the Cooperative
Extension Service.
Can we safely eat Michigan sport fish?
I think so. By avoiding contaminants as
described above, you can enjoy a delicious
and healthy meal of our bountiful fresh-
- was- -
A
water fish.
If you have questions about particular
contaminants, bodies of water, or fish call
the Department of Public Health's "Toxic
and Health Hotline"—1-800/648-6942.CI
The author: Dr. James Bedford is en-
vironmental health ombudsman on the staff
of the Michigan Council for Environmen-
tal Quality.
'70
>•
PCBs and DDT 1970-1987
Lake Michigan Lake Trout
W-r
*
il'18-
•-•98
Most of the nuyor contaminants'inGreat Lakes / J
no longer manufactured in theUnited J
; ping the use ' — !« .¦ •
declined following the bans. The concentrations continue to d
-------
B-98
Are there toxic chemicals in the fish you're eating
Recently there have been headlines
In the newspapers about the presence
of mercury In water bodies that can
be absorbed by the fish you catch and
eat and affect your health.
What exactly does this mean? Are
there Other chemicals that can also get
into fish and affect your health?
In some Louisiana waters, fish and
shellfish have chemical contamina-
tion in amounts that may be harmful
to your health if you were to eat too
much over • long period of time.
These contaminants may be in the
environment due to various reasons
like industrial discharges, leaking
landfills, municipal runoff, aerial
deposition, or natural occurrence.
Bacterial contamination occurs natu-
rally or comes from sewage or agri-
cultural runoff.
Fish tike in the contaminants from
water, suspended sediments and food.
The Louisiana Office of Public
Health's Section of Environmental
Epidemiology (SEE) evaluates the
amount of chemicals in different spe-
cies of fish from water bodies to de-
termine if the chemicals present could
The following chart lists the current fishing advisories in Louisiana,
1 BANS\ADVISORIES\OATES
PARISH
POLLUTANT
DEPT I
Information on fish consumptionM-?-^.*
Calcasieu, Cameron
Calcasieu Estuaty
HCB, HCBD, PCB
37 miles
DEQ & DHH
Fish & shellfish consumption limits;
Calcasieu, Cameron
Sayou d'lnde
HCB. HCBD. PCBs
6 miles
DHH & DEQ
swimming & water sports & contact with bottom
sediments/4-7-92.*
Sediment contamination/1 -17-89.'
Calcasieu
Bayou Olsen at Lake Charles
chloroform, misc. chemicals
0.5 miles
DEQ,
No fish consumption/Sediment
East Baton Rouge
Capitol Lake in Baton Rouge
PCBs
.12 sq.mi.
DEQ
contamination/8-24-83.*
Fish consumption of no mora than 2 meals
East Baton Rouge
Devil's Swamp, Devil's Swamp
HCB, HCBD. PCBs, mercury.
7 sq. mi.
DHH & DEQ
• month, water contact sports, swimming/7-9-93.
Lake and Bayou Baton Rouge
northwest of Baton Rouge
lead, arsenic. Superfund sits.
No fish sale & consumption/2-16-89.*
Natchitoches
Sibley Lake at Natchitoches
PCBs
3.4 sq.mi.
DHH & DEQ
No Bass fish consumption; Other fish
Ouachita, Union,
Ouachita River, UVAR border
Mercury
102 miles
DHH & DEQ
species no mora than 2 meals a month/7-29-92. •
Morehouse, Caldwell
10 lock at Columbia
No Crappis fish consumption; other fish
Ouachita, Richland,
Bayou Lafourche from
Dioxin
2 miles
DHH & DEQ
.species no more than 2 meals per month/3-7-34.
Morehouse
Highway 80 Overpass
downstream to Interstate 20
Fist} consumption of two meals or less per
Ouachita, Richland
Lake Irwin from one mile
Dioxin
2 miles
DHH&DEQ
month of small mouth buffalo; no limit of
and Morehouse
upstream of the Morehouse
consumption on other species/3-7-94.
Parish Road Overpass
downstream to the weir.
No fish consumption/3-7-94.
Ouachita, Morehouse
and Richland
VWham brake near Swartz
Dioxin
7.2 sq.mi.
DHH & DEQ
No fish consumption, swimming.
St. Tammany
Bayou Bonfouca. Slidell
Creosote, Superfund Site,
7 miles
DHH & DEQ
sediment contact/11-24-87.
NO fish consumption/2-19-92.
Franklin, Richland,
Tensas and Madison
Tenses River
DDT, Toxaphene
83 miles
DHH, DEQ, C
* Nowor data exists and will be reviewad tor possible revision of advisory. 3-22-34
34 - Louisiana Sportsman, September 1994
harm your health from eating the fish.
A fish consumption advisory is issued
when unacceptable levels of chemi-
cal contaminants have been found in
fish. The advisory tells you how much
and which fish are safe to eat from a
certain area.
In order to determine if an advisory
is needed, SEE calculates the expo-
sure dose from fillet samples taken by
the Department of Health and Hospi-
tals (DHH), the Department of Envi-
ronmental Quality (DEQ) and other
agencies.
Fish samples are usually collected
by DEQ if the water quality is poor
enough to indicate a chemical con-
tamination problem may exist in
fish. In the past, the whole fish was
analyzed for contaminants; however
most people eat only the fillets.
Now, routinely only fillets are ana-
lyzed for public health studies of fish
contamination. However, if SEE rer
ceives information that normal eadng
habits of an area are to use the whole
fish, such data would be used to cal-
culate the dose.
To calculate the dose of contami-
LOUISIANA
Fisying Advisories
) Bwri tWH
\ tfcsX \ _• yfTV»
BaptrU^Omliifw
MaiiljlGit&fesclwMnr
CafctttoM SMp OmmmI
-------
nants present in the fish, the SEE uses
the National Academy of Science risk
assessment methodology. This tech-
nique assumes that a person weigh-
ing 154 lbs. is eating 1/2 lb. of con-
taminated fish once a week for 70
years, and that they absorb 100% of
the contaminants in the fish.
The contaminant level used in the
calculations is the average of concen-
tration levels from all the fish samples
for each species that was tested. There
is another calculation done with dif-
ferent assumptions for pregnant and
nursing women, and children.
•/¦as'.--'
5'
!
The technique
assumes that a
I person weighing 154
ypounds is eating 1/2-
I pound of
| contaminated fish
| once a week for 70
* years. j
y i
If the calculated~
-------
4. How can I get the chemicals out of the Esh?
ANSWER: You cannot remove all of the chemi-
cals. If you CHOOSE to eat Lake Ontario fish,
the-following will.help REDUCE the amount of
chemicals m the fish you eat:
A. Choose small fish (of legal size)
B. Remove the slcin, fat,.and dark meat •
before cooking
C. DO NOT FRY the fish (frying . .
retains fish fat, where most chemi-
cals are stored)
D. Broil, poach, boil, or bake the fish
E. Drain off and throw away alf
cooking juices
F. DO NOT eat cooking juices or
grease
5. WHAT should I ask about the fish I buy?
ANSWER: You should ask what kind of fish it
is AND where was it caught. Most, fish' from
Lake Ontario and its connecting streams cannot
be sold legally. Buy fish only from grocery
stores or licensed fish sellers.
6. What should I eat instead of Lake Ontario
fish?
ANSWER: Fish caught in the ocean and those
raised on fish farms generally have less of these
chemicals in them than Lake Ontario fish. Fish
without these chemicals are considered to be
part of a healthy diet. Also, include more beans
and rice, pasta, and whole grain foods in your
meals since.these foods are inexpensive and
good for your family.
REMEMBER ... for your children's sake, it is
best NOT to eat fish from Lake Ontario and its
connected waters. MOTHERS, the more fish
• i
you eat, the more harmful chemicals YOU take
in and pass on to your unborn and breastfed
CHILDREN.
For more information, the New York State
Department .of Health provides a toll-free .
number: l-(800)-458-1158.
COO 1991 "
Should My Family
Eat Fish Caught
In Local Waters?
Printing was funded by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Fish illustrations provided courtesy of Gannett
Rochester Newspapers.
This document is based on the-1992-93 New York
State Department of Health Fish Consdmption
Advisory.
If Your Family Eats Local Fish,
Please Read This.
-------
Some fish from Lake Ontario and its connect-
ing streams, rivers, ponds, and bays contain
dangerous chemicals in amounts considered too
high by the New York State Health Depart-
ment
This pamphlet explains why you and especially
YOU£ CHILDREN may be harmed by eating
fish caught in Lake Ontario and its connected
streams, rivers, ponds, and bays.
BACKGROUND
Many people in our area enjoy cooking and
eating fish caught in Lake Ontario and the 1
rivers, streams, bays and ponds that connect,to
the lake. However, some of these fish contain 3,
variety of chemicals that may be harmful.
These chemicals have entered our environment
from factories, businesses and households.
People take in these chemicals from eating the
fish, but not from drinking tap "water.
HERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS YOU
MAY HAVE ABOUT EATING FISH
FROM LAKE ONTARIO:
1. What's the problem?
ANSWER: Severe birth defects have been found
in wild animals and birds that eat Lake Ontario
and. Great Lakes fish. Some scientists have
found that birth weights are lower and learning
is delayed in some children whose mothers eat
Great Lakes fish. Some of the chemicals in
these fish may increase the risk of cancer.
2. WHO is most at risk from eating Lake
Ontario fish?
ANSWER: Women should not eat these, fish
since they can pass the chemicals on to their
unborn babies and nursing infants. Children
under the age of 15 also should not eat these
fish.
3. WHAT fish shouldn't ! eat?
ANSWER: Infants, children under the age of 15,
. and women of child-bearing age should not eat
fish from Lake Ontario and connecting streams,
"rivers, ponds, and bays.
Other members of your family SHOULD NOT
EAt these kinds of fish from Lake Ontario:
Channel catfish
American eel
Lake trout
Chinook salmon
Coho salmon (over 21 inches long)
Rainbow trout (over 25 inches long)
Brown trout (over 20 inches long)
Carp
Other members of your family SHOULD NOT
EAT MORE THAN ONE MEAL. A MONTH
of these fish from Lake Ontario:
~White perch
Coho salmon (under. 21 inches long)
Rainbow trout (under 25 inches long)
Brdwn trout (under 20 inches long)
White sucker
•As of June 1991 the New York State Department of Health,
recommends that NO WHITE PERCH caught west of Pt Brem
be eaten.
AND, other members of your family SHOULD
NOT EAT more than one. meal a. week of any
other kind offish from Lake Ontario and its
connected waters.
Here are some pictures of fish you and your
family should not eat any of:
Channel catfish
American eel
> -
Chinook salmon
Silvery with spotted'
markings; 30 to 40
pounds.
Coho. salmon
Silvery color, ,
weighing eight to
10 pounds.
Brown trout
Brown with dark
spots, three to six
pounds.
Rainbow trout
Bluish or olive on
bade, silvery green
on sides. Up to 20
pounds.
Lake trout
Gray with pinkish
spots, 10 to more
than 20 pounds!
w
White perch £
Brilliant silver
with darker green
cast on the back;
about one pound.
Carp
Color varies
widely. Averages
one to six pounds.
-------
ATTENTION
Fish Consumption Advisory —
Lake Hartwell
S.C. Department of Health and
Environmental Control (SCDHEC)
• All fish taken from the Seneca River arm
of Lake Hartwell north of SC Highway 24
and 12 Mile Creek should be released and
not eaten.
• All fish larger than three (3) pounds taken
from the remainder of Lake Hartwell should
be released and not eaten.
• Fishing is not prohibited but SCDHEC ad-
vises that these fish not be eaten due to
the presence of elevated levels of poly-
chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Swimming,
boating, and other water related activities
are not restricted by this advisory.
For additional information,
contact SCDHEC at:
COLUMBIA GREENVILLE ANDERSON
734-5300 242-9850 225-3731
ATTENTION
FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORY - LANGLEY POND
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
• All fish taken from Langley Pond should be released and not eaten.
• The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control advises that these fish not be eaten due to the presence of
elevated levels of mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
For Additional Information, Contact
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control at:
Columbia
(803) 734-5300
Aiken
(803) 648-9561
-------
APPENDIX C
Example Evaluation Measurement Instruments
1. "Catching and Eating Freshwater Fish in New York" mail survey
instrument (Connelly et al. 1992) (C-2)
2. "Angler Attitudes and Behavior Associated with Ohio River Health
Advisories" (Knuth et al. 1993) (C-16)
-------
C-2
CATCHING AND EATING
FRESHWATER FISH
IN NEW YORK
Human Dimensions Re»eorct> Unit
Deportment of Natural Resources
New York Stole College of Agriculture and life Sciences 5j
A Statutory College of ihe State University
Cornell University, Ithaco, N. Y.
,iuy
-------
103
C-3
CATCHING AND EATING
FRESHWATER FISH IN NEW YORK
Research conducted by the
Human Dimensions Research Unit
in the Department of Natural Resources
New York State College of
Agriculture and Life Sciences
The purpose of this survey is to (earn more about freshwater fishing in
New York State. We're interested In the activities and opinions of anglers
related to fishing and eating fish. Your answers will help improve the process
of advising anglers about the safety of eating freshwater fish in New York
State.
Please complete this questionnaire at your earliest convenience, seal it,
and drop it in any mailbox (no envelope is needed); return postage has been
provided. Your responses will remain confidential and will never be associated
with your name.
Cornell University
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE!
Printed on recycled paper
-------
104
C-4
1. At what age did you first fish on a fairly regular basis (at least 5 days
per year?)
Age when you first started fishing regularly:
Check here if you have never fished at least 5 days in any year.
2. Did you do any freshwater fishing in New York State between January
1, and December 31,1991? (Check one.)
Yes How many days? (Count any part of a day as a whole
day.)
days
No
3. Please indicate which of the following methods you use to prepare
and eat any sport-caught fish in your household. Circle the number
for each item that best describes your actions.
1 =A(ways; 2=UsualIy; 3=Sometimes; 4=Rarety; 5=Never
a Trim the strip of fat
along the back of the fish
Alwavs
1
2
3
4
Never
S
b. Trim belly meat
1
2
3
4
5
c. Puncture or remove the skin
1
2
3
4
5
d. Eat whole, gutted fish
1
2
3
4
5
e. Fillet the fish
1
2
3
4
5
f. Pan fry
1
2
3
4
5
g. Deep fiy
1
2
3
4
5
h. Make fish soups or chowders
1
2
3
4
5
i. Bake, barbecue, or poach fish
1
2
3
4
5
j. Reuse oil or fat from cooking fish
1
2
3
4
5
k. Freeze or can the fish for use at
a later time
1
2
3
4
5
-------
4. Please Indicate on the chart below the name and county location for each area that you fished In New York
State between January 1 and December 31,1991. For each location record the number of each species of
fish you personally caught In the upper left corner of the box. Record the number of meals of fish you ate of
each species from each location below the diagonal line In the lower right corner of each box. (If you can't
remember the number, but know you caught or ate some put a'?' in the appropriate triangle.) If you did not fish in
New York in 1991, skip to Question 5.
Name of
Lake or
Stream
County
o
cn
0
1
Ul
-------
106
C-6
Sportfish in a number of New York waterways have been found to contain
levels of chemical contaminants which may pose health risks to fish
consumers. The New York Department of Environmental Conservation
distributes health advisories written by the Department of Health which
give advice about limiting consumption of fish from certain waters of the
State.
5. Prior to this survey were you aware of these health advisories?
(Check one.)
YES, aware of specific species and/or water bodies
YES, generally or vaguely aware
NO (SKIP TO QUESTION 11)
6. Which of the following information sources made you aware of the
health advisories? (Please check all that apply.)
Newspaper article or editorial
Magazine article
1990-1991 Fishing, Small Game Hunting, and Trapping
Regulations Guide
Previous years Fishing, Small Game Hunting, and Trapping
Regulations Guides
Newsletters from fishing clubs
Cooperative Extension information
New York Sea Grant information
New York State Fisheries agency personnel (Department of
Environmental Conservation)
New York State Department of Health personnel
Warnings posted on waters that I fish
Friends
Television or radio
Guides or charterboat operators
-------
107
Since you learned about the New York State health advisories, have
you made any changes in either your fishing habits or in the way you
eat the fish you catch?
NO. I made no changes as a result of the advisories, because:
(Please check all that apply.)
I never ate New York sport-caught fish even before I learned
about the advisories.
The amount of fish I ate before I learned about the advisories
was less than the recommended limits.
I don't believe sport-caught fish pose a health risk for me.
I couldn't tell from the advisories which locations would have
cleaner fish in them.
I couldn't tell from the advisories which species of fish have
less chemicals in them.
I don't know how to fish for the species of fish that have less
chemicals in them.
I couldn't tell from the advisories what sizes of fish have less
chemicals in them.
I couldn't tell from the advisories how to clean my fish in a
way that reduces chemicals in them.
I couldn't tell from the advisories how to cook my fish in a way
that reduces chemicals in them.
YES. What changes have you made? (Please check all that apply.)
I no longer eat any sport-caught fish.
I eat less sport-caught fish now than before the advisories.
I eat more sport-caught fish now because I can choose to
keep fish from waters where there are less serious advisories.
I have changed the ways I clean fish before eating them.
I have changed the ways I cook fish before eating them.
I have changed fishing locations because of the advisories.
I take fewer fishing trips since learning about the advisories.
I take more fishing trips now because I can choose waters with
less serious contaminant problems.
I have changed the species of fish I eat because of the
advisories.
I have changed the sizes of fish i eat because of the
advisories.
-------
108
C-8
8. For each type of fish, please circle the number that best describes
the change you made in the amount of fish you eat because of the
advisories. Circle 5 if you never ate a certain type of fish before or
after learning about the advisories.
Stopped Decreased No Increased Never
Eating Amount Change Amount Ate
American eel
Brown bullhead
Brown trout
Carp
Channel catfish
Chinook salmon
Coho salmon
Crappie
Lake trout
Largemouth bass
Muskeliunge
Pickerel or Pike
Rainbow trout
Smallmouth bass
Sunfish (e.g. bluegill,
pumpkinseed)
Walleye
White perch
White sucker
Yellow perch
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
S
5
5
5
S
S
S
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
-------
109
C-9
9. Please check YES, NO, or NOT SURE for each statement below:
Not
Yes No Sure
a The health advisories provide me with
enough information to decide whether
or not to eat certain fish.
b. The advisories are not needed, or are
exaggerated.
c. The New York State health advisories
have increased my interest in water
pollution control and cleanup efforts.
d. The negative health effects from eating
contaminated fish are mainly short term.
e. The potential negative health effects from
eating contaminated fish include nervous
system disorders and cancer.
f. Older fish generally have more
contaminants in them than younger fish.
g. Many chemical contaminants are found in
greater amounts In fatty fish than
in lean fish.
h. Fish contaminated with chemicals will
taste odd.
i. Fish contaminated with chemicals don't
behave normally.
j. To reduce the levels of chemical
contaminants in fish you should:
1. remove the belly fat
2. pan fry the fish
3. broil the fish on a rack
4. remove the skin __
10. Which of the following methods do you think is used to measure
contaminant levels in fish for the New York health advisories?
(Check one.)
measure whole fish, skin on
measure fillet from fish, skin on
measure fillet from fish, skin off
don't know
-------
no
C-10
11. What do you think the State recommends as the maximum number of
meais of fish that a person should eat from any water in New York
State? (Check one.)
None 1 per week 5-6 per week
1 or less per mo. 2 per week 1 per day
2-3 per mo. 3-4 per week Don't Know
12. What do you think the State recommends as the maximum number of
meals of fish that women of childbearing age and children under 15
should eat if the fish have elevated contaminant levels? (Check one.)
None 1 per week 5-6 per week
1 or less per mo. 2 per week 1 per day
2-3 per mo. 3-4 per week Don't Know
13. For questions 13a and 13b, please use this list of government
agencies to answer the questions:
a. New York State Department of Health
b. County/City Department of Health
c. Department of Environmental Conservation, Bureau of
Environmental Protection
d. Department of Environmental Conservation, Bureau of Fisheries
e. Don't Know
13a, If someone wanted to know more about health effects from exposure
to chemical contaminants, which government agency do you think the
person should contact?
(Write one letter from the list above.)
13b. If someone wanted more information about contaminant levels in fish,
which government agency do you think the person should contact?
(Write one letter from the list above.)
-------
m
C-ll
14. How much control do you believe you have in determining whether
you will experience health problems due to eating New York sport-
caught fish? (Circle the number that best reflects your opinion.)
Almost No Very Little Very Much Almost Complete
Control Control Control Control
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15. How concerned should the general public be about the potential
health risks from New York sport-caught fish? (Circle one number.)
Very Somewhat Slightly Not at All Don't
Concerned Concerned Concerned Concerned Know
1 2 3 4 5
16. How concerned are you personally that eating New York sport-caught
fish is a potential health risk to you or members of your immediate
family? (Circle one number.)
Very Somewhat Slightly Not at All Don't
Concerned Concerned Concerned Concerned Know
1 2 3 4 5
17. Please check YES, NO, or NOT SURE for each statement below:
Not
Yes No Sure
a. Chemicals from fish can have a greater
impact on developing organs in children or
unborn babies than on organs in adults.
b. Eating fish oils decreases the risk of
coronary heart disease.
c. Increasing fish consumption reduces dietary
fat and helps to control weight.
d. Eating contaminated fish can result in
accumulation of chemicals in my body.
e. Eating contaminated fish over many years
increases my health risks.
-------
112
C-12
18. Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the
following statements. (Circle one number for each item.)
1 =Strongly agree
2=Agree
3=Neutral
4=Disagree
5=Strongly disagree
6=Don't know Strongly Strongly Don't
Agree Disagree Know
a The health risk from eating contaminated
sport-caught fish is minor when compared
with other risks I'm exposed to. 1 2 3 4 5 6
b. I don't think government agencies really know
how much chemical contaminants are in fish. 1 2 3 4 5 6
c. The health benefits of eating sport-caught
fish are greater than the health risks. 1 2 3 4 5 6
d. The health benefits children get from eating
sport-caught fish are greater than the
health risks. 1 2 3 4 5 6
e. The health benefits unborn children get when
their mothers eat sport-caught fish are greater
than the health risks. 1 2 3 4 5 6
f. I would eat more sport-caught fish if health risks
from chemical contaminants did not exist. 1 2 3 4 5 6
19a. Please rate how believable you think each of the following are as
sources of information about the potential health risks from eating
sport-caught fish. (Circle one number for each information source.)
Not At All Moderately Extremely
Believable Believable Believable
a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1 2 3 4 5
b. NYS Department of Health 1 2 3 4 5
c. NYS Department of Environmental
Conservation, Bureau of Fisheries 1 2 3 4 5
d. NYS Department of Environmental
Conservation, Bureau of Environmental
Protection 1 2 3 4 5
e. Sportsmen's associations or clubs 1 2 3 4 5
f. Charter boat operators or guides 1 2 3 4 5
g. Sea Grant Extension specialists 1 2 3 4 5
h. Environmental interest groups 1 2 3 4 5
i. Newspaper reporters or writers 1 2 3 4 5
j. Your own physician 1 2 3 4 5
-------
113
e-13
19b. If you wanted to know more about the health risks from eating sport-
caught fish, which one of the sources of Information listed In 19a
would you contact first?
Please write one letter from the list in Question 19a.
(Check here if you don't know)
20. Please check YES, NO, or NOT SURE for each statement below:
I would like more information about: Not
Yes No Sure
a how potential health risks change as
more or less fish is eaten.
b. the potential health problems that may occur
in adults who eat contaminated fish.
c. the potential health problems that may occur
in children who eat contaminated fish.
d. the potential health problems that may occur
in children whose mothers eat contaminated
fish before or during pregnancy.
e. comparing health risks from eating
contaminated fish with health risks from
eating other protein sources. __
f. comparing health risks from eating
contaminated fish with health risks from
other activities such as smoking cigarettes
or drinking alcohol.
g. how to clean fish to reduce the health
risks posed by contaminants.
h. how to cook fish to reduce the health
risks posed by contaminants.
i. the chemical contaminants in sport-caught
fish that cause advisories to be issued.
j. the way in which health agencies and fishery
management agencies decide how much fish
to recommend eating in advisories.
k. how to choose fishing locations to reduce
the health risks posed by contaminants.
i. which sizes of fish to eat to reduce
the health risks posed by contaminants.
m. which species of fish to eat to reduce
the health risks posed by contaminants.
n. the potential health benefits that may occur
for people who eat sport-caught fish.
------- |