Risk Communication in Action
CASE STUDIES IN FISH ADVISORIES
Cleaning and Cooking Ftsh
Chin Hid iMh M pr«
•Mfrapf i9**cn he nnMH«j rfv
-'. • -•-. «-.. f .-, 31 -
I'TtLMljtilM* Lk< JtEi H rt-ri*
to JH! with »•
......r •, , i ,.
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
-------
EPA/625/R-06/013
August 2007
in
in
by
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)
Engineering and Environmental Management Group
Reston, Virginia 20190
U.S. EPA Contract No. 68-C-02-067
Work Assignment 2-06
for
Work Assignment Manager
Dan Petersen, Ph.D., DABT
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
Notice
This document has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
approved for publication. The mention of any trade name does not constitute endorsement.
-------
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with protecting the na-
tion's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the
Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between
human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this
mandate, EPA's research program is providing data and technical support for solving environ-
mental problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our eco-
logical resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce
environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for
investigation of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks
from pollution that threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's
research program is on methods, and their cost-effectiveness, for prevention and control of
pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public
water systems; remediation of contaminated sites, sediments, and groundwater; prevention
and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with
both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the cost of compli-
ance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to environ-
mental problems by developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the en-
vironment; advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy
decisions; and providing technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation
of environmental regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research
plan. It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to
assist the user community and to link researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
II!
-------
IV
-------
Table of Contents
1.0 How to Use tliis Handbook 1
1.1 Road Map I
1.2 Frequently Asked Questions 1
1.2.1 Risk Communication Concerns 1
1.2.2 Mercury Concerns 2
2.0 Introduction: Communicating Mercury Risk and Its Effects on the Environment
and Human Health to the Public 3
3.0 Mercury and Health Effects 5
3.1 Background 5
3.2 Mercury Emissions 5
3.2.1 Mcrcur> Control Strategics 5
3.2.2 Mercury Control Technologies 6
3.2,3 Emissions Trends and Reductions 8
3.3 Human Exposure to Mercury 8
3.3.1 Health Effects 8
3.3.2 Al-risk Groups 8
3.3.3 Fish Consumption Limits and Fish Consumption Advisories 9
3.4 Other Mercury Risks 9
3.4.1 Denial Amalgam Fillings 9
3.4.2 Accidental Spills 9
3.4.3 Improper Disposal 10
3.4.4 Occupational Exposures 10
3.4.5 Contaminated Drinking Water 10
3.4.6 Ritualistic Uses of Elemental Mercury 10
4.0 Mercury Risk Communication Program Activities 11
4.1 EPA Mercury Risk Communication Efforts to Protect Human Health 11
4.1.1 Fish Quality Index 11
4.1.2 National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories 11
4.1.3 National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue 12
4.1.4 Mercury Measurements and Analysis 14
4.1.5 Mercury Contamination of Subsistence Fisheries on Tribal Lands .... 14
-------
4.2 Other Risk Communication Efforts to Protect Human Health 15
4.2.1 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Reports
on Mercury 15
4.2.2 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Public Health
Statements and Fact Sheets 15
4.2.3 FDA Advisories on Methyl-mercury and Fish Consumption 16
4.2.4 Northeast Waste Management Official's Association Mercury
Program 17
4,2,5 United Nations Environmental Programme's Global Mercury
Assessment 18
4.2,6 U.S. Geological Survey Mercury Research 18
5.0 Case Studies: Developing and Using Data Visualisation and
Date Interpretation Tools 21
5.1 Introduction 21
5,2 State of Minnesota Program 21
5.2.1 Program Background 21
5.2.2 Effective Methods 21
5,2.3 Key Accomplishments 22
5.2.4 Lessons Learned 24
5.2.5 Future Plans 24
5.3 Stale of New York Program 24
5.3.1 Program Background 24
5,3,2 Effective Methods 24
5.3.3 Key Accomplishments 25
5.3.4 Lessons Learned 25
5,3,5 Future Plans 25
5.4 Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission Program 26
5,4,1 Program Background 26
5.4.2 Effective Methods 26
5,4,3 Key Accomplishments 28
5.4.4 Lessons Learned 28
5.4.5 Future Plans 28
5.5 San Francisco Bay FCA and Risk Communication Program 28
5.5.1 Program Background 28
5,5.2 Effective Methods 29
VI
-------
5,5,3 Key Accomplishments 31
5.5.4 Lessons Learned 31
5.5,5 Future Plans 32
5.6 Risk Communication Challenges 32
6.0 References 33
7.0 Appendices
A Mercury in Fish 35
B Mercury in Motion 36
C EPA's Reference Dose for Methyl-mercury 37
D Statewide Public Advisories 38
E Blood and Hair Mercury Concentrations by Age and Gender 40
F Mercury Levels in Fish and Shellfish 41
G Mercury Contamination of Aquatic Ecosystems 43
H MDH Outreach Materials 44
I NYSDOH Outreach Materials 60
J GLIFWC Outreach Materials 66
K San Francisco Bay Outreach Materials 73
L Full Text of Presentation by Dr. Stuart Harris 78
M EPA Office of Water Brochures 87
VII
-------
VIII
-------
List of
ACME Aquatic Cycling of Mercury in the Everglades
ADA American Dental Association
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
AVS acid-volatile sulfide
BMD benchmark dose
CAA Clean Air Act
Cal/EPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CDHS California Department of Health Services
CL confidence level
CNS central nervous system
CRST Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
CWA Clean Water Acl
DDT dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane
DEP Department of Environmental Protection
DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans
DNR Department of Natural Resources
DOC dissolved organic carbon
DOD Department of Defense
DOE Department of Energy
DOI Department of Interior
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESD Environmental Sciences Division
FCA Fish Consumption Advisory
FDA Food and Drug Administration
FGD flue gas desulfurization
GLIFWC Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission
Hg mercury
IMERC Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse
TOMC Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals
KIHD Kuopio Ischaemic Heart Disease
LOAEL lowest observed-adverse-effect level
LOD limit of detection
LOI loss on ignition
MCL maximum contaminant level
IX
-------
MCM Mercury Cycling Model
MDH Minnesota Department of Health
MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NARAP North American Regional Action Plan
NAS National Academy of Sciences
NCER National Center for Environmental Research
NEWMOA Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association
NERL National Exposure Research Laboratory
NHANES National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
N1H National Institutes of Health
NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
NLFWA National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories
NOAEL no observed-adverse-effeel level
NRC National Research Council
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
N YSDOH New York State Department of Health
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OERR Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
ORD Office of Research and Development
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PBT persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic
PCB polychlorinaled biphenyl
PM paniculate matter
ppm parts per million
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RfD reference dose
SETAC Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
SFWMD South Florida Water Management District
SOx sulfur oxides
SRI Science Results Integration
STAR Science to Achieve Results
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
US DA United States Department of Agriculture
USGS United States Geological Survey
WCS Watershed Characterization System
WIC Women, Infants, and Children
-------
1.0 How to Use this Handbook
This handbook provides both general and detailed information
on how to enhance mercury risk communication activities and
other outreach efforts and to facilitate communication in areas
where information is not available.
1.1 Road Map
Introduction to communi-
cating mercury risk and the
subsequent impacts of
exposure (Chapter 2)
Background information
on mercury and its health
effects, including
informational sources,
emissions and resulting
deposition, and bioaccu
mulation in fish (Chapter 3)
Mercury risk communication • Case study presentations
EPA and non-EPA research
efforts (Chapter 4)
1.2 Frequently Asked Questions
The following are answers to frequently asked questions that
should be considered when developing or expanding a mercury
risk communication program.
1.2.1 Risk Communication Concerns
How do data visualization and data
interpretation tools communicate risk?
Data visualization tools present information
through images (such as maps, icons, and pie
charts) rather than words. Tools used to inter-
pret data (such as indexes) describe complex
scientific concepts in relatively simple terms.
Both of these tools can be particularly power-
ful in relaying information about environmen-
tal quality conditions and environmental health
risks. Figure 1-1 was taken from the EPA report
"Evaluation of Mercury Risk Communication
Messages," which evaluated the way in which
people digest mercury risk information.
data visualization and interpretation tools often make it possible
to communicate environmental risk information fairly quickly.
What are some of the most effective ways to inform
the public about environmental risks?
According to the experience of previous environmental risk
communication
projects, the most
effective ways to
relay environmen-
tal risk information
is to establish a web
site that displays a
variety of tools for
showing data (e.g.,
maps, color-coded charts), arranging for local news media to
present your information, establishing a telephone hotline, and
developing a collection of printed materials. Many other out-
reach methods may also be effective, such as setting up kiosks
at strategic locations to distribute information (sometimes on
on-site computers), giving presentations to local officials and
others, and incorporating the information into school science
curriculums.
advisory programs that have
successfully used data
visualization and interpreta
tion tools (Chapter 5)
What is time-relevant risk
communication?
The term "time-relevant" refers to the goal of
providing real-time (such as daily or near-daily)
environmental information. Providing time-rel-
evant information can be particularly important
when one seeks to communicate environmental
risks, because such risks depend on conditions
that can change each day. The Internet and other
18-24
25-34 35-44 45-54
Age Groups
DOral • Visual D Written |
55+
Figure 1-1. Easiest Format to Learn From - Preferences by Age Group
From EPA, 2004, Evaluation of Mercury Risk Communication Messages.
-------
Studies are needed to identify those who should have access
to different risk communication tools. For example, web sites
would better communicate risks of exposure to methyl-mer-
cury if the intended audience is advanced and familiar with
information technology. Printed material, such as fact sheets
and brochures, would better communicate risks of exposure to
methyl-mercury if the intended audience is more familiar with
less technical media tools, such as newspapers, magazines, and
library resources.
1.2.2 Mercury Concerns
How do fish become contaminated with mercury?
When mercury goes into a body of water, microorganisms help
change its form to methyl-mercury. Methyl-mercury is a highly
toxic form of mercury. Small animals and plants take up the
mercury as they feed. As larger animals eat those plants and
smaller animals, they too take in methyl-mercury. Instead of
ridding themselves of the mercury, often plants and animals
store the mercury in their body. This process continues, with
levels of mercury increasing, up the food chain. This process is
known as bioaccumulation. Higher-order carnivorous fish, such
as sharks and swordfish, have a higher mercury concentration
than lower-order fish. This process can be found in greater de-
tail in Appendix A.
Do some fish contain more mercury than others?
Yes. Freshwater fish caught by recreational or subsistence
fishermen (people who fish for their food) from contaminated
waters have been shown to have particularly high levels of
methyl-mercury. Certain species of commercially available
saltwater fish, such as shark and swordfish, kingfish and tilefish
also can contain high levels of mercury.
Are the fish caught in fresh water lakes and streams
safe to eat?
There can be a risk of contamination from mercury in fresh
waters from either natural or industrial causes that would make
the fish unsafe to eat. EPA provides some current advice on
fish consumption from fresh water lakes and streams, but states
have the direct responsibility to provide fish consumption advi-
sories to their citizens.
If you are pregnant or could become pregnant, are nursing a
baby, or are feeding a young child, limit consumption of fresh-
water fish caught by family and friends to one meal per week.
For adults, one meal is six ounces of cooked fish or eight ounces
of uncooked fish. For a young child, one meal is two ounces of
cooked fish or three ounces of uncooked fish.
Many states collect data on mercury levels in fish from local wa-
ters. Check with your state or local health department for specif-
ic advice on waters where your family and friends are fishing.
What about fish from stores and restaurants?
In addition, EPA and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) have issued a joint advisory on mercury in fish bought
from stores and restaurants, which includes ocean and coastal
fish as well as other types of commercial fish. EPA and FDA
advise that women who are pregnant or could become preg-
nant, nursing mothers and young children not eat shark, sword-
fish, king mackerel, or tilefish. EPA and FDA also advise that
women of childbearing age and pregnant women may eat an
average of 12 ounces of fish purchased in stores and restaurants
each week. Therefore, if in a given week you eat 12 ounces
of cooked fish from a store or restaurant, then do not eat fish
caught by your family or friends that week.
Advice on locally caught fish is available in local fish adviso-
ries. EPA provides some general guidance on freshwater fish
caught from local waters. However, the Agency recommends
that women who are or could become pregnant, nursing moth-
ers and young children follow the FDA advice for coastal and
ocean fish caught by family and friends. For more information
on mercury in these fish, please contact the Food and Drug Ad-
ministration or visit their web site at www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/
tphgfish.html.
What are fish advisories?
Generally, local governments protect people from possible risks
of eating contaminated fish by monitoring their waters and issu-
ing fish advisories when contaminant levels are unsafe. While
most of the nation's waters contain fish that are safe to eat, con-
sumption advisories may recommend that people limit or avoid
eating certain species of fish caught from certain lakes, rivers or
coastal waters. In some cases, advisories apply to specific water
types, such as lakes, or they may include recommendations for
specific groups, like pregnant women or children.
Advisories apply to locally caught fish or wildlife, as well as fish
purchased in stores and restaurants. Find out about nationwide
advisories by visiting www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/. Many
states have increased the number of notices of "no restriction"
or safe eating guidelines to tell the public that the fish from
certain areas have been tested and are safe to eat. Statewide
advisories are also issued by many states: they warn the public
of possible risks from eating certain species from certain types
of waters. Commercial fishing bans may also be issued which
forbid the harvest and sale of fish, shellfish, and/or wildlife spe-
cies from a designated waterbody or area.
Where can I get more information about fish
advisories?
For more information about the National Listing of the Advi-
sories, you can visit the EPA's web site at www.epa.gov/wa-
terscience/fish/. To find out how to select and prepare fish, read
"A Guide to Healthy Eating of the Fish You Catch," found in
Appendix M. For more information about reducing your health
risks from eating fish you catch, contact the local or state health
or environmental protection department. You can find the tele-
phone number in the blue section of your local telephone direc-
tory. Or you can find the name and number of a state or local
fish advisory contact at the EPA web site.
-------
2.0 Introduction: Communicating Mercury Risk and Its Effects
on the Environment and Human Health to the Public
Persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicals, such as
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, and mercury, are
a major focus of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) primary goal to communicate environmental and health
risks to the public. This initiative also has increasingly become
a responsibility of Federal, state, and local officials, as well as
private groups and organizations. PBT chemicals pose great en-
vironmental risk to media such as air and water, and because
they bioaccumulate in fish and wildlife, once consumed, result
in health risks for many people. The primary method of expo-
sure to many PBT chemicals is through foods, and the most
at-risk groups are pregnant women, children, and subsistence
fishermen because of their consumption of contaminated fish.
The primary route of exposure for many PBT chemicals is
through foods.
The purpose of this document is to convey recent work per-
formed concerning risks of exposure to methyl-mercury to the
risk communicators at various levels. The focus of this docu-
ment is on PBT mercury, specifically methyl-mercury, and
its effects on human health resulting from the consumption of
contaminated fish. Exposure to methyl-mercury results in detri-
mental effects to the central nervous system (CNS). Acute ex-
posure to very high levels of methyl-mercury may lead to blind-
ness, deafness, unconsciousness, and coma. Chronic exposure
to methyl-mercury may result in paresthesia (numbness and a
tingling sensation around the lips, fingers, and toes), bodily dis-
comfort, blurred vision, speech difficulties, and constriction of
the visual field (U.S. EPA 2003a).
EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) began a
pilot program to enhance the communication of scientific re-
search results to the Agency's stakeholders, such as state, local,
and county governments; local health departments; and private
citizens. This pilot program is part of a new process called Sci-
ence Results Integration (SRI). The goal of this program is to
provide these stakeholders with information in the most useful
and easy-to-understand form. Too often, research projects and
results related to mercury risks are published in peer review
journals and technical magazines. Most people do not have free
and easy access to these publications, and the information pre-
sented is difficult for those unfamiliar with scientific and tech-
nical terminology.
This document hopes to address three questions related to at-
risk groups and their exposure to methyl-mercury through con-
taminated fish consumption:
• Have all at-risk groups been identified?
• What are effective means of communicating the possible,
negative health effects of methyl-mercury exposure and
exposure prevention to at-risk groups?
• Are the potential health risks heterogeneous, in that risks
vary lake by lake and fish by fish?
This mercury risk communication document provides readers
with useful and easy-to-understand information on methyl-mer-
cury, exposure to methyl-mercury through contaminated fish
consumption, background information on at-risk groups, and
summaries of research initiatives and case studies that exam-
ine potential health risks and variances. In this document, read-
ers also will have access to tables and graphs identifying data
and trends in mercury research, and outreach materials, such
as tear-out fact sheets and brochures, that can be reproduced.
EPA ORD hopes that sharing this information with stakehold-
ers and risk communicators will help others establish mercury
risk communication programs and improve efforts already in
progress to be inclusive of all at-risk groups.
-------
-------
3.0 Mercury and Health Effects
3.1 Background
Mercury is a toxic metal. It is a liquid at room temperature, but
volatilizes readily under ambient conditions. It is found in three
forms: elemental mercury, inorganic mercury compounds, and
organic mercury compounds, such as methyl-mercury. The
global mercury cycle occurs in four stages: emission to the at-
mosphere, transformation and transport in the atmosphere, de-
position to the earth, and re-emission to the atmosphere. This
process is described in greater detail in Appendix B. Mercury is
emitted to the environment from natural sources and anthropo-
genic, man-made sources. See Figure 3-1.
Figure 3-1. Pre-industrial (left) and current (right) global mercury cycle.
Reference: Norling, P., etal. (eds). Water and Sustainable
Development: Opportunities for the Chemical Sciences
— A Workshop Report to the Chemical Sciences
Roundtable.
3.2 Mercury Emissions
Natural mercury emissions occur as the result of the volatil-
ization of mercury in marine and aquatic environments and
vegetation, volcanic emissions, and forest fires. Anthropogenic
emissions occur as the result of human activities. It is estimated
that 40 to 75 percent of current atmospheric mercury concentra-
tions are from anthropogenic sources (U.S. EPA 1997c). Anthro-
pogenic sources of mercury include area sources, combustion
sources, and manufacturing sources. Area sources of mercury
emissions are small and numerous and tend to be difficult to lo-
cate geographically. These include lab use, dental preparations,
landfills, mobile sources, and wastewater treatment plants. Ap-
proximately 87 percent of anthropogenic emissions of mercury
are from combustion sources, which primarily include utility
boilers, municipal solid waste incineration, medical waste in-
cineration, sewage sludge incineration, and commercial and in-
dustrial boilers. EPA has identified fossil-fuel power plants as
the largest source of mercury emissions (NRC 2001). Manufac-
turing sources include both primary and secondary production
processes. Examples of primary sources include chlor-alkali
production, lime manufacturing, battery production, electrical
apparatus manufacturing, copper and lead smelting, and pulp
and paper mills. Secondary production processes are mostly re-
cycling activities, such as fluorescent lamp recycling.
3.2.1 Mercury Con trol Strategies
Mercury control strategies can be environmental media-fo-
cused (i.e. air, land, water), environmental source-focused, or
product-focused. Standards and programs also exist to limit oc-
cupational exposure to mercury in the workplace or during its
transport. Control strategies are undertaken at the Federal, state,
and international levels.
Federal Strategies
Environmental media-focused strategies specify a maximum
acceptable mercury concentration for different environmental
media, based on scientific or risk-based criteria. These include
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for drinking water and
Ambient Water Quality Criteria and Water Quality Guidance
for the Great Lakes System for surface water. There are no am-
bient standards for mercury for air or soil.
Environmental source-related strategies specify, for individual
sources or waste types, the conditions associated with mercury
use, disposal, and release. For example:
• The import of foods containing residues from mercury-
containing pesticides not registered for use in the U.S. is
banned.
• Some wastes, such as waste from brine purification muds
and wastewater treatment sludge from the mercury cell
process of chlor-alkali production, are defined as hazard-
ous due to the presence of mercury.
• Air emissions of mercury from hazardous waste combus-
tion in boilers and industrial furnaces are regulated under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
and the Clean Air Act (CAA).
• Water releases from industrial facilities are limited under
industry-specific standards, based on available control
technologies.
• Allowable levels of mercury in wastewater treatment
plant sludge are limited under the Clean Water Act
(CWA) (U.S. EPA 1997c).
-------
Product-focused strategies specify the conditions under which
mercury may be used in the manufacture of products such as
batteries, paints, pesticides, and dental products. The use of
mercury in batteries has been phased out or limited by the Mer-
cury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act of
1996. No uses of mercury in paints or pesticides currently exist
in the U.S. Dental amalgams containing mercury are regulated
as Class II medical devices, which places special controls on
their use (U.S. EPA 1997c).
Also, the Clear Skies Initiative, proposed in 2002, establishes a
new cap and trade program for mercury. The Initiative proposes
to reduce mercury emissions by 70 percent by the year 2018
(U.S.EPA2002c),
State Strategies
State strategies to reduce mercury emissions tend to be envi-
ronmental source-focused or product-focused because of the
comprehensive media-specific strategies implemented at the
Federal level. State environmental source-focused controls in-
clude the following:
• Florida and New Jersey limit mercury emissions from
municipal solid waste incinerators.
• Wisconsin requires medical waste incinerators with ca-
pacities of greater than five tons/day to test for mercury
during the first 90 days of operation and again the follow-
ing year. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resourc-
es also has planned to consider more stringent regulations
of mercury emissions from utilities in June 2003. This
proposal establishes a cap and trade program requiring a
total of 90 percent reductions in mercury emissions over
the next 15 years (Wisconsin 2003).
• Michigan requires businesses to report mercury use and
water discharge information.
• Minnesota has established management standards for fa-
cilities recycling mercury-containing hazardous wastes.
Product-focused strategies and standards are more common at
the state level. Many states have regulations restricting or ban-
ning the use of mercury in household batteries. States also regu-
late the use and/or disposal of mercury in white goods, elec-
trical components, dental amalgams, toys, lighting, packaging,
Pharmaceuticals, and fireworks (U.S. EPA 1997c).
The Health Care Without Harm web site www.hcwh.org/mer-
cury/ordinances lists the various laws and regulations that states
and localities have enacted regarding mercury in the commu-
nity. Michigan, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, Oregon
and Maryland have banned the sale of mercury fever thermom-
eters. Indiana, California, and New Hampshire all have placed
restrictions on the sale of these types of mercury thermometers.
Cities such as Boston, Massachusetts; Chicago, Illinois; San
Francisco, California; Ann Arbor, Michigan; and Duluth, Min-
nesota, have banned mercury fever thermometers as well.
Other localities have taken a different approach to removing the
threat of mercury in their respective regions. Mountain View,
California, conducted a "Money for Mercury" program, which
offered residents a discount for a non-mercury thermometer
when turning in a mercury-based thermometer. Broward Coun-
ty, Florida, recently offered a thermometer exchange, in which
non-mercury thermometers were traded for mercury thermom-
eters. The EPA Safe Mercury Management web site www.epa.
gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/mercury/index.htm provides links to
these local initiatives and programs.
International Strategies
International strategies to reduce mercury emissions include the
Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy and the North Ameri-
can Regional Action Plan (NARAP). Canada and the U.S.
signed the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy in 1997. It
was developed to help achieve the goals of the Great Lakes
Water Quality Act. Mercury is considered to be an immediate
priority of the program. Both countries are working to reduce
and eventually to eliminate emissions of mercury and mercury
compounds in the Great Lakes Watershed. The NARAP is an
agreement between Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. that addresses
concerns associated with the sound management of chemicals.
One of the regional action plans focuses on reducing mercury
levels released to and existing in an environmental area, in an
attempt to prevent or reduce exposure to sensitive ecosystems,
fish, wildlife, and humans (U.S. EPA 1997c).
3,2.2 Mercury Control Technologies
Pollution Prevention Measures
Pollution prevention measures, frequently referred to as source
reduction, include use reduction, raw material substitution, pro-
cess or equipment modification, product redesign, training, im-
proved inventory control, production planning and sequencing,
and better management practices.
Examples of toxics use reduction can be found in battery and
fluorescent lamp manufacturing. Historically, mercury was
used in household batteries to inhibit side reactions and reduce
corrosion of the battery casings. It was also used as a compo-
nent of the zinc amalgam in alkaline batteries. Over the last few
years, the battery industry has eliminated the use of mercury
in inhibiting side reactions and battery casing corrosion. It has
also reduced the amount of mercury used in zinc amalgams to
trace amounts. The fluorescent lamp manufacturing industry
also drastically reduced the amount of mercury used per lamp
(U.S. EPA 1997c).
The battery industry has also been involved in raw materi-
als substitution. Mercury is used in mercuric oxide batteries.
These tend to be small batteries with a constant current supply.
The industry has developed alternatives to mercuric oxide bat-
teries, such as zinc-air and silver-oxide batteries, which can
replace mercuric oxide batteries. Another example of material
substitution is the replacement of mercury amalgam dental fill-
ings with gold, ceramic, porcelain, polymers, composites, and
glass ionomers.
Process modification is occurring in some chlor-alkali manu-
facturing plants. In mercury cell chlor-alkali plants, mercury
is used as a flowing cathode in the electrolytic cells. There are
many opportunities for mercury emissions during this process.
-------
An alternative to the mercury cell process is the membrane cell
process, in which no mercury is used, resulting in a reduction
in mercury emissions for the industry. Additionally, the mem-
brane cell process is a more energy-efficient process than the
mercury cell process (U.S. EPA 1997c).
An example of a better management practice is the use of
materials separation. Emissions of mercury from waste incin-
erators are reduced by removing materials with high mercury
concentrations, such as batteries and fluorescent lamps, from
the waste stream. This is more effective than reliance on air
pollution control devices, which are only partially effective at
removing mercury.
Coal Cleaning
Coal cleaning involves physically stratifying the coal and re-
moving impurities, such as high-sulfur or high-ash minerals.
Coal cleaning is done to remove ash, moisture, and sulfur from
coal to reduce transportation costs, improve power plant effi-
ciency, and upgrade the value of the coal (U.S. EPA 1995). Ap-
proximately 77 percent of eastern and midwestern bituminous
coal is cleaned. Coal cleaning has an average mercury removal
efficiency of 21 percent. Advanced methods of coal cleaning,
such as column froth flotation or selective agglomeration, can
remove more mercury. These methods, used after conventional
cleaning, have an average mercury removal efficiency of 51 to
68 percent (U.S. EPA 1997c).
Flue Gas Treatment
Flue gas treatment involves the use of air pollution control de-
vices to reduce mercury emissions. Different treatment tech-
nologies are used for commercial/industrial and utility boilers.
Flue gas treatment includes use of one or more of the following
technologies: carbon filter beds, wet scrubbers, depleted brine
scrubbing, treated activated carbon adsorption, selenium fil-
ters, activated carbon injection, flue gas desulfurization (FGD)
scrubbers, and spray dryer FGD systems.
Carbon filter beds incorporate a series of filters. Flue gas flows
through the filters in one direction, while carbon flows through
in a different direction. The estimated removal efficiency is ap-
proximately 99 percent. Carbon filter beds are currently used
for municipal solid waste incinerators, utility boilers, and in-
dustrial boilers. Potential drawbacks for the system include the
potential for "hot spots" within the bed, which can lead to bed
fires, and the need to dispose of the mercury-containing bed
material. There is also the possibility of releases of mercury
during the charring of the coal to create the carbon.
Wet scrubbers can involve a one-, two-, or three-stage pro-
cess. The removal efficiency can be greater than 90 percent
for water-soluble mercury species, but is lower for elemental
mercury. Wet scrubbers are currently used on medical waste
incinerators and approximately 25 percent of coal-fired boilers
in the U.S. and on municipal waste incinerators in Europe. A
potential drawback of this technology is the required treatment
of the wastewater prior to disposal.
Depleted brine scrubbing is used to control emissions at mer-
cury cell chlor-alkali plants. It uses the discharged brine from
the chlorine cell as a scrubbing liquor to further reduce mercury
emissions. The removal efficiency for mercury is approximate-
ly 98 percent.
Treated activated carbon adsorption uses a packed bed of sul-
fur- or iodine-impregnated carbon to reduce emissions of both
elemental and oxidized mercury. It is used in various industries,
including chloride-alkali plants, and has a removal efficiency of
approximately 90 percent.
Selenium filters operate on the theory that there is an affinity
between mercury and metallic selenium. They are used at cop-
per and lead smelters and have limited use at municipal waste
incinerators, crematories, and utilities in Europe. The mercury
removal efficiency is approximately 90 percent and is affected
by the mercury concentration and forms in the flue gas, flue
gas temperature, and flue gas dust content. Potential drawbacks
of this technology include the possible emissions of selenium
from the filter and the need to dispose the selenium- and mer-
cury-containing filters after use.
Activated carbon injection involves the injection of activated
carbon into flue gas upstream of another air pollution control
device to collect the particles. It is used at municipal waste
incinerators and medical waste incinerators and has been used
at pilot-scale utility plants. Mercury removal efficiencies are
highly variable (50 to greater than 95 percent). The removal
efficiency is dependent on flue gas volume, temperature, va-
por and particulate phase constituents, mercury concentration
and species, the additional air pollution control device used,
and the type and amount of activated carbon used. A potential
drawback of this technology is the need for disposal of the in-
creased amount of particulate matter (PM) resulting from util-
ity boilers.
FGD systems are used at utility boilers to reduce the emissions
of sulfur oxides (SOx), but can also reduce mercury emissions.
FGD scrubbers are currently installed on approximately 25 per-
cent of coal-fired utility boilers in the U.S. Mercury removal
efficiencies vary widely. Spray dryer FGD systems are used at
approximately 1 percent of coal-fired boilers. Average mercury
removal efficiencies for spray dryers range from 60 to 70 per-
cent (U.S. EPA 1997c).
Incentive-based Systems
Incentive-based systems provide regulated industries with
more flexibility than traditional regulatory programs. These
programs traditionally set a limit on, or cap, the allowable level
of emissions and allow flexibility on how the limits are met.
Many incentive-based systems allow for transfer or banking of
allowable emissions. This can create incentives for innovation,
which can lead to increased and faster reductions.
-------
Co-control
Co-control is the control of mercury by control devices or
other measures designed or prescribed to limit emissions of
pollutants other than mercury. Fuel switching, such as switch-
ing from high-sulfur to low-sulfur coal or from coal to natural
gas to achieve emissions reductions for SOx, may also lead to
decreased mercury emissions. EPA has also determined that
implementing the national SOx strategy to meet National Am-
bient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM would lead to a
reduction in mercury emissions from utility boilers of 11 tons
per year (U.S. EPA 1997c).
3,2.3 Emissions Trends and Reductions
Increased energy conservation or the use of renewable energy
sources will also lead to a reduction in mercury emissions. The
overall consumption of mercury for use in industrial or manu-
facturing products or processes is decreasing. Industrial con-
sumption of mercury dropped almost 75 percent between 1988
and 1996. This was due mostly to the elimination of mercury
in paint (20 percent) and the reduction of mercury in batteries
(36 percent) (U.S. EPA 1997c). Mercury use also decreased ap-
proximately 50 percent between 1995 and 2000, due mostly to
the decreased use of mercury by the chlor-alkali industry (U.S.
EPA & Environment Canada 2002). At the same time, second-
ary production of mercury has increased and is expected to
continue to increase. This is due to increased recycling of mer-
cury-containing electrical equipment, such as fluorescent lamps
and thermostats (U.S. EPA 1997c). The U.S. EPA has set a goal
of a further 50 percent reduction in mercury use by 2006 (U.S.
EPA & Environment Canada 2002).
Recent studies have shown that total mercury emissions are on
the decline. Between 1990 and 1997, mercury emissions from
municipal solid waste incinerators and medical waste incinera-
tors dropped 50 and 75 percent, respectively (U.S. EPA 1997c).
Total mercury emissions declined approximately 25 percent
during the same period. While official inventories are not avail-
able, estimated mercury emissions have decreased more than
40 percent between 1990 and 2001 (U.S. EPA & Environment
Canada 2002). These reductions are expected to continue due
to the closure of many medical waste incinerators, changes in
the waste stream due to materials separations and incinerator
regulations, and the switch from mercury cells to membrane
cells at many chlor-alkali plants (U.S. EPA undated). The U.S.
EPA has also set a goal of a 50 percent reduction in mercury
emissions by 2006 (U.S. EPA & Environment Canada 2002).
3.3 Human Exposure to Mercury
3.3.1 Health Effects
Human health effects from mercury exposure are dependent on
the form of mercury, type of exposure, and degree of expo-
sure. Exposure to elemental mercury and methyl-mercury can
lead to adverse impacts on the central nervous system (CNS).
Due to the severe effects of exposure, EPA has established a
reference dose (RfD) for methyl-mercury of 0.0001 mg/kg-day
(U.S. EPA 2003a). The RfD is an estimate of a daily exposure
of the human population (including sensitive subgroups) to a
non-carcinogen at which level adverse effects are unlikely to
occur. EPA used a benchmark dose (BMD) analysis described
in Appendix C to quantify the dose-effect relationship resulting
in the RfD for methyl-mercury.
Table 3-1. Health Effects Resulting from Exposure to Mercury and
Methyl-mercury
Acute
Exposure
Chronic
Exposure
Elemental
Mercury
tremors, mood
changes,
slowed sen-
sory and motor
nerve function
tremors, ir-
ritability, exces-
sive shyness,
and erethism,
or increased
excitability
Inorganic
Mercury*
nausea, vomit-
ing, and severe
abdominal pain
kidney damage
Methyl-
mercury
blindness,
deafness, un-
consciousness,
and coma**
paresthesia
(numbness
and a tingling
sensation
around the lips,
fingers, and
toes), bodily
discomfort,
blurred vision,
speech difficul-
ties, and con-
striction of the
visual field
Reference: U.S. EPA 2003a.
'Exposure to inorganic mercury usually occurs through oral ingestion.
"Health effects resulting from acute exposure to very high levels of
methyl-mercury.
Recent studies have also linked exposure to mercury to an in-
creased risk of heart disease and cardiovascular death. A study
on the effects of the consumption of mercury-contaminated fish
was conducted as part of the Kuopio Ischaemic Heart Disease
(KIHD) Risk Factor Study. Hair, blood, and urine samples were
taken from 1,833 Finnish men between 1984 and 1989. The
mercury content was determined to be correlated to estimated
fish intake. The study found that men with hair mercury con-
centrations of greater than 2 parts per million (ppm) had a two-
fold greater risk of acute myocardial infarction (Salonen et al.
1995). A recent study conducted through Johns Hopkins Uni-
versity also found a correlation between mercury exposure and
heart disease. The study compared concentrations of mercury in
toenail clippings of men from eight European countries and Is-
rael and occurrences of a first myocardial infarction. The study
found that toenail mercury concentration was directly correlated
to the risk of myocardial infarction. The study authors theorized
that mercury may predispose people to atherosclerotic disease
by promoting the production of free radicals or by inactivating
several antioxidant mechanisms (Guallar et al. 2002).
3.3.2 At-risk Groups
There are two aspects of at-risk groups: exposure and sensitiv-
ity (U.S. EPA, MDH & SRI 2001). Two groups in the U.S. are
at risk due to sensitivity to mercury: women (specifically those
who are pregnant, nursing, or of childbearing age) and children.
Subsistence fishers, including Native Americans and Alaskan-
Native Villagers, are at risk due to their increased exposure
-------
to mercury. Consumption of contaminated fish is the primary
source of exposure to mercury in the U.S. (NRC 2001).
Pregnant Women and Women of Childbearing Age
The population at highest risk from mercury exposure is chil-
dren of women who consumed large amounts of fish and sea-
food during pregnancy (Schoeny 2001). The National Health
and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in 1999 found
that mercury levels in women of childbearing age are generally
below those considered hazardous. However, approximately 8
percent of women had potentially dangerous amounts of mercu-
ry in their blood and hair (CDC 200la). Based on current birth
rates in the U.S., this equates to approximately 60,000 children
born each year at risk from mercury exposure (NRC 2001). Fe-
tal exposure to high levels of methyl-mercury may cause loss
of muscle coordination, mental retardation, blindness, deafness,
and cerebral palsy. Fetal exposure to low levels of methyl-mer-
cury may cause developmental delays and abnormal reflexes
(U.S. EPA 2003a). Nursing women who consume large amounts
of fish and seafood also place their infants at risk.
Children
Oral ingestion of methyl-mercury may lead to developmental
delays in children. Children exposed to elemental mercury or
inorganic mercury may suffer from acrodynia. Symptoms of
acrodynia include severe leg cramps, irritability, paresthesia,
painful pink fingers, and peeling hands, feet, and nose. The oc-
currence of acrodynia is very rare (U.S. EPA 2003a). The 1999
NHANES study also found that mercury levels in young chil-
dren were generally below those considered hazardous (CDC
200la). Most of the health effects found in children are due to
in utero exposure.
Subsistence Fishers
The daily average per capita fish consumption in the United
States is 4.52 grams per person per day (U.S. EPA 2002a).
However, some groups consume much higher amounts of fish,
placing them at a much greater risk for mercury exposure.
Some tribal consumers may consume as much as 1,000 grams
per person per day (Harris 2001). Subsistence fishers also have
higher rates of fish consumption due to eating self-caught fish
that are contaminated with mercury and other PBT substances.
Fish have great cultural significance for many groups in the
U.S. For example, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla In-
dian Reservation consider fish to be the first people in creation.
Fish are a very important part of tribal traditions, including re-
ligion, tribal ceremonies, and social education (Harris 2001).
Fishing is part of the "community landscape" (U.S. EPA, MDH
& SRI 2001). Fish is also an important part of the diet for many
Southeastern Asian communities in the U.S. (U.S. EPA, MDH
& SRI 2001).
3-3,3 Fish Consumption Limits and Fish
Consumption Advisories
Risk-based fish consumption limits are recommendations on
the maximum numbers of meals of a certain type of fish that
can be eaten over a specified time period by defined groups
of consumers, based on the mercury concentration in the fish
tissue (Schoeny 2001). Consumption limits assume the same
body weight and meal size for all adult consumers. The FDA
currently recommends that children and pregnant and nursing
women should avoid eating king mackerel, shark, swordfish,
and tilefish. Consumption of fresh or frozen tuna should be lim-
ited to three times per month, and consumption of canned tuna,
as well as a variety of other kinds of cooked fish, should be
limited to 12 ounces per week. A typical serving size of fish is
from 3 to 6 ounces (FDA 200la).
The FDA previously used a 1-ppm level for concentrations of
methyl-mercury in fish as its actionable level for fish advisories
and removal of commercial fish from marketplaces. The FDA
is considering a more stringent consumption limit of 0.0001
mg/kg-day, equivalent to the EPA RfD for consumption of
methyl-mercury (FDA 2003).
In addition, states may also issue advisories based on mercury
concentrations found in local fish. These can include no-con-
sumption advisories for the general public or sensitive sub-
populations, restricted consumption advisories for the general
public or sensitive subpopulations, and commercial fishing
bans. In 2001, 1,933 fish advisories were issued for mercury,
covering 10,179,247 lake acres and 414,973 river miles (U.S.
EPA 2002b).
3.4 Other Mercury Risks
Human exposure to mercury can also occur from dental (amal-
gam) fillings, accidental mercury spills, improper disposal,
occupational exposure, drinking water, and ritualistic uses of
elemental mercury. The risk of exposure to mercury from these
sources, however, is significantly lower than exposure from fish
consumption.
3-4.1 Den tal Amalgam Fillings
Dental amalgam fillings are composed of approximately 50
percent elemental mercury and an alloy of tin, copper, silver,
and zinc. Mercury vapor may be released from amalgam fill-
ings as a result of pressure from chewing or grinding at the
rate of 1-3 pg/day (ADA 2003). There is considerable debate
over whether this is a significant enough rate of release to cre-
ate risk of adverse effects. The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) recommended and began a research program
that was developed and implemented to study the health effects
from mercury in amalgam fillings (CDC 200 Ib, Factor-Livtak,
et al. 2003). Significant correlation between amalgam fillings
and adverse health effects have not been established (Factor-
Livtak, et al. 2003).
3-4-2 Accidental Spills
Exposure to mercury can also occur as the result of accidental
spills. Exposure can occur as a result of chemical fires or explo-
sions, uncontrolled hazardous substance releases from acciden-
tal spills or abandoned industrial facilities, or contamination of
the water supply. While there is no estimate of the likelihood
of exposure due to accidental spills, EPA does take measures
to minimize the risks. At a spill site, EPA may seal off the con-
-------
laminated area, block vapor releases from ventilation systems,
and cover floor drains. EPA will also limit public access to the
site (U.S. EPA 1997a).
3,4.3 Improper Disposal
Many mercury-containing products are improperly disposed.
These items include fluorescent and mercury-vapor lamps,
mercury switches, thermostat probes, thermometers, and den-
tal amalgam. If these items are disposed in a landfill, mercu-
ry may be released into the landfill and may ultimately reach
groundwater as a result of leachate generation. Incineration
of mercury-containing wastes may release mercury emissions
into the atmosphere. Mercury spilled from these products may
also enter surface water through releases from wastewater treat-
ment plants if these spills are not properly contained (U.S. EPA
1997b).
3,4.4 Occupational Exposures
Occupational exposure is another potential source of human
exposure to mercury. The primary source of occupational ex-
posure to mercury is through inhalation of mercury vapor. To
protect against occupational exposure to harmful levels of mer-
cury, a number of occupational health organizations have set
limits on the safe exposure to mercury in the workplace:
• The Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) has set a permissible exposure limit of 0.1 mg/
cubic meter of air (ceiling limit).
• The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) has established a recommended exposure limit
of 0.05 mg/cubic meter of air (time-weighted average).
• The American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists has assigned a threshold limit value of 0.025
mg/cubic meter of air (time-weighted average) (OSHA
1999).
Occupational exposure to mercury occurs primarily in mercury
processing, mercury cell chlor-alkali production, dental use,
laboratory use, and through recycling of mercury-containing
materials. In studies of chlor-alkali plant workers, urine mer-
cury levels were detected at levels between 12 and 13 times
higher in the workers than in the control group. A study of den-
tal workers measured mercury levels in the pituitary glands at
autopsy. Mercury levels between 135 and 4,040 pg/kg (median:
815 pg/kg) were detected in the dental workers compared to a
median concentration of 23 pg/kg for the general population
(ATSDR 1999).
3-4-5 Contaminated Drinking Water
Human exposure to mercury can also occur through contamina-
tion of the drinking water supply. The Safe Drinking Water Act
requires EPA to determine safe levels of chemicals which do
or may cause health effects. National Primary Drinking Water
Standards are legally enforceable standards that apply to public
water systems. The current standard for mercury is 0.002 mg/L
of drinking water (U.S. EPA 2002b). However, approximately
42 million people obtain drinking water from private wells,
streams or cisterns. These water sources are not regulated by
the EPA (USGS 1998).
3-4-6 Ritualistic Uses of Elemental Mercury
In January 1999, the EPA Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response (OERR) created a Task Force on Ritualistic Uses of
Mercury. The Task Force was charged to research certain spiri-
tual practices and folk traditions requiring the use of elemental
mercury and to recommend an approach to eliminate or reduce
exposures to elemental mercury from these activities. Elemen-
tal mercury is supplied in religious stores, known as botanicas,
and used for medicinal, herbal, or religious practices in some
Latino and Afro-Caribbean traditions. Some practices include
Santeria, Palo, Voodoo, and Espiritismo. Elemental mercury
is used by individuals of these cultures to bring love, luck, or
money; to protect against evil; or to speed the action of spells
(U.S.EPA2002d).
Unfortunately, the adverse effects of using elemental mercury
in these practices have not been communicated to these cultures.
To remedy this problem, Federal, state, and local agencies have
participated in formal and informal information gatherings,
meetings with community groups, production and distribution
of health alerts and outreach materials, investigation of com-
plaints, research funding, risk assessments, voluntary product
recalls, measurements of mercury air levels in botanicas and
other living areas, and enforcement of applicable regulations.
Some outreach materials have included fact sheets, sample
labels, web sites, brochures, radio announcements, and press
releases. In general, the Task Force hopes to reduce mercury
exposure through communication and providing recommenda-
tions of realistic and cost-effective actions that will promote
health and well-being, while respecting cultural traditions and
community autonomy. Specifically, the Task Force recom-
mends that EPA OERR:
• Develop a brochure on mercury describing its hazards
and what to do if mercury is spilled. This brochure should
serve as a template to be used by local and community
groups and be distributed primarily via the web.
• Produce a written statement for distribution to community
groups on the DOs and DON'Ts of mercury use. The
written statement should include messages from the EPA
OERR brochure and stress the needed guidance from
community leaders.
• Encourage funding to assist community-based organiza-
tions and local health departments to get involved in out-
reach efforts.
• Work with other EPA media offices to incorporate these
ritualistic aspects and traditional uses of mercury in exist-
ing education programs (U.S. EPA 2002d).
10
-------
4.0 Mercury Risk Communication Program Activities
This chapter summarizes several EPA projects that demonstrate
mercury risk communication program activities available for
public utility. It also describes mercury risk communication ef-
forts initiated by organizations and Federal agencies such as the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), CDC, FDA, and the United
Nations. Program contact information also has been included
for further references of information.
4.1 EPA Mercury Risk Communication
Efforts to Protect Human Health
4.1.1 Fish Quality Index
Many people are exposed to PBT chemicals, such as methyl-
mercury, PCBs, or dioxins, through food consumption and are
at high risk for methyl-mercury toxicity because they consume
contaminated fish, particularly subsistence fishermen, pregnant
women and children. Unfortunately, exposure to PBT chemi-
cals has been hard to capture because they amplify in the food
chain, even though ambient levels of these PBT substances in
lakes and streams are within acceptable limits.
As a result, many at-risk groups have not been targeted for com-
munication of the human health risks resulting from exposure
to PBT chemicals through food consumption, and a means of
effectively communicating these risks does not readily exist.
To address these concerns, EPA's ORD has worked through
its National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL)
to define regions and specific lakes and streams that have high
levels of native fish consumption and to identify where high
mercury or other PBT concentrations in water typically occur.
This effort also compiles mercury or other PBT concentrations
from waterbodies and fish that inhabit these lakes and rivers
from historical data or from data that have been recently col-
lected. NRMRL also is working to complete the final product
of this effort, a user-friendly risk communication tool, the Fish
Quality Index.
Subsistence fishermen are exposed to contaminated fish when
gathering fish from lakes and streams within tribal lands.
Tribal members who consume these fish are then at risk, as
well. Consumption levels among the members following a
subsistence diet vary depending on the location of the persons
living in a subsistent community, typically Native Americans
and persons living in Alaska Native Villages. However, a
subsistence diet typically includes fish consumption on the
average of four times weekly.
The Fish Quality Index is a color-coded pictogram for various
fish species that will educate users on levels of fish contamina-
tion. For example, fish color-coded green are safe to eat, even at
subsistence consumption levels. Yellow-coded fish are safe to
consume once a month, while red-coded fish may be safe only
if eaten less than once a year. This easy-to-understand map-
based tool will educate the public, and especially the sensitive
populations, as to the relative safety of lakes, streams, and safer
species of fish.
The Fish Quality Index has been completed nationwide and is
currently in its final testing stage.
Program contact: Dan Petersen, EPA, ORD, NRMRL, 26
West Martin Luther King Drive (G75), Cincinnati, OH 45268,
513-569-7831, petersen.dan@epa.gov, or www.epa.gov/ORD/
NRMRL.
4.1.2 National Listing of Fish and Wildlife
Advisories
The National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories (NLFWA)
contains information on contaminated fish that may not be safe
to eat, listed by state and local area. The consumption adviso-
ries listed in the NLFWA are initiated by state, local, and tribal
governments, as well as U.S. territories. EPA's Office of Wa-
ter publishes the NLFWA, and the most recent listing of 2001
NLFWA advisories was published in May 2002. The NLFWA
web site, www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/, also includes the
names and telephone numbers of state or local agencies that list
the most current fish and wildlife advisories.
NLFWA is designed to help the public find areas where fish
are low in chemical pollutants, and members of state, local,
and tribal communities can use the NLFWA to get information
on these consumption advisories. NLFWA also can be used to
generate national, regional, state or local maps that illustrate
advisory information. In general, the consumption advisories
found in NLFWA recommend that people limit or avoid eat-
ing certain species of fish caught from certain lakes, rivers or
coastal waters. In some cases, advisories apply to specific water
types, such as lakes, or they may include recommendations for
specific groups, such as pregnant women, children, or the el-
derly. Advisories apply to local fish or wildlife, as well as fish
purchased in stores and restaurants.
Most advisories focus on five primary chemical contaminants,
specifically mercury, PCBs, chlordane, dioxins, and dichloro-
11
-------
diphenyl trichloroethane (DDT). These chemical contaminants
persist for long periods in sediments, and when bottom-dwell-
ing animals digest and accumulate them, exposure to fish with
these five primary contaminants will occur. Levels of these con-
taminants will increase as they move up the food chain, so top
predators in a food chain, if exposed, such as largemouth bass
or walleye, may have contaminant levels several times higher
than that of the water.
Some states have issued notices of "No Restriction" to inform
the public that the fish from certain areas have been tested and
are safe to eat. Statewide advisories are also issued by many
states that warn the public of possible risks of eating certain
species from certain types of waters. Commercial fishing bans
may also be issued which forbid the harvest and sale of fish,
shellfish, and/or wildlife species from a designated waterbody
or area.
The 2001 NLFWA, which can be found at www.epa.gov/water-
science/fish/, lists 2,618 advisories in U.S. states and territories
and contains the following information for each advisory:
• Species and size of fish or wildlife under advisory
• Chemical contaminants covered by the advisory
• Location and surface area of the waterbody under
advisory
• Population subject to the advisory
• Local contacts (including names, phone numbers and web
sites).
States typically issue five major types of advisories and
bans to protect both the general population and specific
subpopulations1:
No-consumption advisory for the general population
— Issued when levels of chemical contamination in fish
or wildlife pose a health risk to the general public. The
general population is advised to avoid eating certain types
of locally caught fish or wildlife.
No-consumption advisory for sensitive subpopulations
— Issued when contaminant levels in fish or wildlife pose
a health risk to sensitive subpopulations (such as children
and pregnant women). Sensitive subpopulations are ad-
vised to avoid eating certain types of locally caught fish or
wildlife.
Restricted consumption advisory for the general popu-
lation — Issued when contaminant levels in fish or wild-
life may pose a health risk if too much fish or wildlife is
consumed. The general population is advised to limit eat-
ing certain types of locally caught fish or wildlife.
Restricted consumption advisory for sensitive sub-
populations — Issued when contaminant levels in fish or
wildlife may pose a health risk if too much fish or wild-
life is consumed. Sensitive subpopulations are advised to
limit consumption of certain types of locally caught fish or
wildlife.
Commercial fishing ban — Issued when high levels of
contamination are found in fish caught for commercial pur-
poses. These bans prohibit the commercial harvest and sale
of fish, shellfish, and/or wildlife species from a designated
waterbody. In addition to the five major types of adviso-
ries, states are increasingly issuing notices of no restriction
or statewide advisories.
A No Restriction advisory is issued to inform the public that
fish from specific waterbodies have been tested for chemical
contaminants, and the results have shown that specific spe-
cies of fish from these waters contain very low levels and are
thus safe to eat without consumption restrictions. In contrast, a
Statewide advisory is issued to warn the public of the potential
human health risks from widespread chemical contamination of
certain fish species or of species from certain types of waterbod-
ies (e.g., lakes, rivers, and/or coastal waters) within the state.
Twenty-eight states currently have statewide advisories for
contaminants in waters or certain waterbody types for one or
more species of fish. Please see Appendix D for a summary of
the statewide advisories.
Program contact: Jeff Bigler, EPA, Office of Science and Tech-
nology, National Fish and Wildlife Contamination Program
(4305T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
20460, 202-566-0400, bigler.jeff@epa.gov, or www.epa.gov/
waterscience/fish/.
4.1.3 National Study of Chemical Residues
in Lake Fish Tissue
Monitoring fish in lakes and reservoirs for chemical contamina-
tion is critical in order to protect human health because these ar-
eas are important for sport fishing, subsistence living, and other
recreational activities. The 2001 update to EPA's NLFWA
reports that 79,119 lakes (11,277,276 lake acres) and 485,205
river miles in the U.S. were under fish advisory in 2001 (U.S.
EPA 2002b). Therefore, EPA is conducting a screening-level
study to estimate the national distribution of selected PBT resi-
dues in fish tissue from lakes and reservoirs in the U.S. The
National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue (or
National Fish Tissue Study) is a screening-level study and is led
by EPA's Office of Water, with help from EPA's ORD and Of-
fice of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances; EPA Re-
gions; state and tribal agencies; the National Park Service; and
the Tennessee Valley Authority. The goal of the National Fish
Tissue Study is to define national background levels for 265
chemicals in fish, establish a baseline to track progress of pol-
lution control activities, and identify areas where contaminant
levels are high enough to warrant further investigation. Lakes
are the primary focus of this study because they serve as per-
manent, stable environments for contamination accumulation.
Also, the accumulation of PBT substances and other contami-
nants is easier to detect in lakes than in reservoirs.
1 The language used here to explain the five major types of advisories and bans can be found in the U.S. EPA Office of Water, Fact Sheet —
Update: National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories, EPA-823-F-02-007, May 2002 (U.S. EPA 2002b).
12
-------
Contaminants in lakes and other waterbodies are the result
of direct discharges of chemicals into the water, chemical air
deposition, and agricultural or urban runoff of toxics.
EPA initiated the National Fish Tissue Study in 1998 as a pri-
ority activity under the Agency's PBT Initiative. The National
Fish Tissue Study is the first national fish tissue survey to be
based on a random sampling design that allows EPA to develop
national estimates of mean PBT concentrations in fish tissue.
The study also provides data on the largest set of PBT chemi-
cals evaluated in fish. The study consists of four phases:
• Planning (1998-1999), including study design
development, random lake selection, and target chemical
selection.
• Mobilization (1999-2000), including orientation work-
shops, development of partnerships, production of quality
assurance, plans and sampling plans, lake reconnaissance,
and pilot sampling events at 26 lakes.
• Implementation (2000-2003), including sampling of 261
lakes in 44 states in 2000-2001; chemical analysis of 288
first-year fish samples in 2001; database development;
sampling of about 125 lakes per year in 2002-2003; and
chemical analysis of about 250 fish samples per year in
2001, 2002, and 2003 samples.
• Data Analysis and Reporting (2004-2005), including sta-
tistical analysis of fish tissue, residue results, preparation
and distribution of a final study report, and data archive
into EPA's new STORage and RETrievel repository
(STORET).
EPA has worked with partner agencies to collect fish from 500
randomly selected lakes and reservoirs in the U.S. See Fig-
ure 4-1. The lakes (defined as permanent bodies of water with
depths of at least 1 meter) were divided into six size categories,
ranging from 2.5 to over 900,000 surface acres. Composites for
sampling consisted of five adult fish of similar size that were
large enough to provide 560 grams of tissue for analysis of fil-
lets for predators and whole bodies for bottom dwellers. EPA
analyzed each composite for 265 chemicals, including mercury.
EPA also analyzed the fish tissue for arsenic, 17 dioxins and
furans, 159 PCB congeners, 43 pesticides, and 40 other organ-
ics, including phenols.
Based on first-year results taken from fish samples collected
in 1999-2000, mercury was detected in 139 sites (or lakes)
in the U.S. The minimum concentration of mercury detected
was 23.2 ppb, and the maximum concentration of mercury
detected was 1,377 ppb.
Program contact: Leanne Stahl, EPA, Office of Water, Office
of Science and Technology (MC4305T), 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20460, 202-566-0404, stahl.
leanne@epa.gov, or www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishstudy/.
EPA's Office of Water also published two informative bro-
chures on health risks due to the consumption of contaminated
fish. The April 2001 brochure, "Should I Eat the Fish I Catch?
A Guide to Healthy Eating for Women and Children," is a two-
page document that provides the general public with EPA rec-
ommendations on fish consumption and FDA advice on eating
fish purchased in stores and restaurants. The 2001 brochure
was developed in collaboration with the Agency for Toxic Sub-
stances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).
The April 2002 brochure, "A Guide to Healthy Eating of Fish
You Catch," provides EPA recommendations for catching,
cleaning, and cooking sporting fish from the nation's lakes,
rivers, oceans, and estuaries. The 2002 brochure also was de-
veloped in collaboration with ATSDR. Both brochures are in-
cluded in Appendix M and may be reproduced without EPA
permission.
Distribution of Sampling Locations
Number of Target Lakes "'
I I 1-5 Lakes
I I 6-10 Lakes
II 11-20 Lakes
• 21-40 Lakes
• 41-60 Lakes
Figure 4-1. Map of the U.S. Displaying the Distribution of Sampling
Locations for All Fish Composites.
500 Sampling Locations
Figure 4-2. Map of the U.S. Displaying the 500 Sampling Locations for
All Fish Composites.
13
-------
National Lake Fish Tissue Study
Data Summary for Predators (Fillet Analysis)
Figure 4-3. Chart of PBT Chemicals Detected at Sampling Sites.
4.1.4 Mercury Measuremen ts and Analysis
The Environmental Sciences Division (BSD) of the EPA ORD
National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL) has developed
several approaches to measure and analyze mercury levels. A
recently developed approach uses a commercially available in-
strument to directly analyze liquid or solid mercury samples
without digestion. The analysis method is much faster than
conventional methods of measuring mercury, requires smaller
samples, and produces virtually no laboratory waste. It has been
validated for both whole-fish and fish muscle tissue.
The fact that this approach utilizes smaller samples enables re-
searchers to use milligram-size concentration samples to repre-
sent the entire fish muscle, making possible non-lethal mercury
sampling, as well as measurements on samples intended for
other analyses.
This method was tested on fish collected from Lake Mead by
researchers from BSD, and as expected, mercury concentrations
were higher in fish of higher trophic level and larger size. Mer-
cury concentrations were found to be highly correlated among
muscle, liver, and blood tissues, with evidence of redistribution
toward the liver at high concentrations. Use of this approach to
analyze fish tissue resulted in reasonably accurate data.
A similar effort, led by NERL, is being used to study the Aleut
community on St. Paul Island in the Arctic. In an outreach ef-
fort with the Big Valley Rancheria (the Big Valley Band of
Porno Indians), a similar type of mercury analyzer may be ac-
quired by a tribe to assess mercury exposures in areas of Cali-
fornia and used to detect levels of mercury in hair, fish tissue,
and feathers.
Program contact: Robin Baily, EPA, ORD, D343-01, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711,919-541-7906, baily.robin@epa.gov,
orwww.epa.gov/ebtpages/pollsoilcmercury.html.
4.1.5 Mercury Contamination of
Subsistence Fisheries on Tribal Lands
EPA's ORD partnered with EPA Region 8 and the Cheyenne
River Sioux Reservation to complete a three-year study of mer-
cury contamination in subsistence fisheries on tribal lands. The
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Department of Environmental
Protection (CRST DEP), EPA ORD's Environmental Response
Team, and EPA Region 8 investigated mercury levels in fish tis-
sues from the Cheyenne River and Lake Oahe in South Dakota.
In 2000, CRST released a fish advisory recommending less
consumption of fish. The fish advisory was public, but specifi-
cally targeted pregnant women, children, and elderly members
within the community. As a part of the fish advisory, CRST
recommended consumption of fish from livestock ponds, which
showed no influence from mining-related activities and presum-
ably had lower concentrations of mercury in fish tissue. How-
ever, fish from livestock ponds with seemingly similar outward
appearances had significant differences in mercury accumu-
lation in both the same species or within species of the same
trophic position. As a result, CRST learned that more in-depth
studies of contaminated fish tissue were needed in order to pro-
tect tribal members from the harmful health effects related to
consumption of various fish.
The goals of this ongoing project involving the Ecosystems Re-
search Division of ORD's NERL are to determine the source
and dominant pathways of methyl-mercury bioaccumulation in
fish tissue and to make risk management recommendations to
tribal members to reduce mercury exposures. Also, sampling
of biotic and environmental media during the characterization
phase of this project will be used to support the application
of the EPA's Watershed Characterization System (WCS) and
Mercury Cycling Model (MCM).
EPA and tribal personnel completed an initial comprehensive
sampling effort in the summer of 2002. Mercury was detected
in soil samples across the region, and high levels of methyl-mer-
cury were found in aquatic invertebrates, including caddisflies
and copepods. Methyl-mercury concentrations were 110 ppb in
caddisflies and 810 ppb in copepods. Region 8 personnel also
have utilized atmospheric deposition sampler systems on-site
to characterize the source term of loadings to the ponds and
surrounding watersheds. Initial results confirm high levels of
methyl-mercury in aquatic food webs; communities domi-
nated by predatory zooplankton are much more contaminated
than ponds dominated by herbivorous plankton (Cladocerans).
Smaller ponds appear to be at greater risk for greater methyl-
mercury bioaccumulation.
Sample collection is ongoing in order to support the develop-
ment of a model to fully characterize the fate and transport of
mercury and its biomagnification in the managed aquatic eco-
systems of the Sioux Tribe.
Program contact: Dr. John M. Johnston, EPA, ORD, NERL,
Ecosystems Research Division, 960 College Station Road, Ath-
ens, GA, 30605-2700, 706-355-9153, johnston.johnm@epa.
gov, or www.epa.gov/athens/.
14
-------
4.2 Other Risk Communication Efforts to
Protect Human Health
4.2.1 The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention Reports on Mercury
Reports and Fact Sheets
The CDC publishes reports containing risk information pertain-
ing to toxic chemicals and metals, including mercury. Of the
several documents that discuss the importance of preventing
human health exposure to toxic substances, including mercury,
CDC's report "Blood and Hair Mercury Levels in Young Chil-
dren and Women of Childbearing Age — United States, 1999"
states that the U.S. population primarily is exposed to meth-
yl-mercury by eating fish (CDC 200la). Exposure to methyl-
mercury results in adverse human health effects, and pregnant
women, women of childbearing age, and young children are
the most sensitive populations. Pregnant women and women of
childbearing age pass on the adverse human health effects of
methyl-mercury to their unborn fetuses. Data reported by the
NHANES 1999 effort are subject to the following three limita-
tions: (1) the ratio of mercury in cord and maternal blood is
uncertain; (2) NHANES cannot provide estimates of mercury
exposure in certain highly sensitive groups, such as subsistence
fishermen and others who eat large amounts of fish; and (3)
the sample size of the NHANES 1999 effort was small and the
1999 survey was conducted in only 12 locations. Please see Ap-
pendix E for data sampling results.
Clearinghouses and Databases
CDC also is continuing its NHANES research efforts in order
to study the human health effects of mercury and several other
toxic chemicals. The table in Appendix E presents prelimi-
nary estimates of blood and hair mercury levels from the 1999
NHANES data. According to the 1999 NHANES data, mercury
levels in young children and women of childbearing age gener-
ally are below those considered hazardous, and approximately
10 percent of women have mercury levels within one tenth of
potentially hazardous levels. The long-term strategy for reduc-
ing exposure to mercury is to lower concentrations of mercury
in fish by limiting mercury releases into the atmosphere from
burning mercury-containing fuel and waste and from other in-
dustrial processes.
NHANES is the only national source of objectively measured
health data capable of providing accurate estimates of both
diagnosed and undiagnosed medical conditions in the popu-
lation. NHANES represents a unique collaboration between
CDC, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and others to
obtain data for biomedical research, public health, tracking of
health indicators, and policy development.
4.2.2 Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry Public Health
Statements and Fact Sheets
ATSDR and EPA jointly issue public health statements and
fact sheets describing the effects of mercury. ATSDR describes
mercury as a hazardous chemical that can cause serious health
problems, and children, as well as fetuses, are most vulnerable.
Mercury exposure also is common for persons using certain
folk medicines or participating in certain ethnic or religious
practices. Therefore, communicating these exposure scenari-
os, whether short-term or long-term, and the resulting human
health effects is extremely important.
ATSDR explains in the public health statements and fact sheets
issued to the public that human exposure to mercury can result
from eating fish containing methyl-mercury. ATSDR lists other
sources as well, including:
• Breathing vapors from spills, incinerators, and industries
that burn mercury-containing fuels.
• Exposure to releases of mercury from dental work and
medical treatments.
• Breathing contaminated air or skin contact in the work-
place, such as dental offices, health services, and chemical
plants.
• Practicing rituals that include mercury.
More information on these sources and other mercury exposure
and risk communication information are outlined in the ATS-
DR's ToxFAQsTM and March 1999 Public Health Statement
for Mercury (see the following text box).
Program contact: ATSDR Information Center, Division of
Toxicology, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop E-29, Atlanta,
GA 30333, 1-888-422-8737, ATSDRIC@cdc.gov.
Program contact: Kenneth W. Harris, National Center for
Health Statistics, Division of Data Services, 3311 Toledo
Road, Hyattsville, MD 20782, 301-458-4636, rdca@cdc.gov,
or www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm.
What Information Does ATSDR Provide on
Methyl-mercury Exposure from Fish Consumption?
Some people may be exposed to higher levels of mercury in
the form of methyl-mercury if they have a diet high in fish,
shellfish, or marine mammals (whales, seals, dolphins, and
walruses) that come from mercury-contaminated waters.
Methyl-mercury accumulates up the food chain, so that fish
at the top of the food chain will have the most mercury in
their flesh. Of these fish, the largest (i.e. the oldest) fish will
have the highest levels. The FDA estimates that most people
are exposed, on average, to about 50 ng of mercury per kilo-
gram of body weight per day (50 ng/kg/day) in the food they
eat. This is about 3.5 micrograms (pg) of mercury per day
for an adult of average weight. This level is not thought to
result in any harmful effects. A large part of this mercury is in
the form of methyl-mercury and probably comes from eating
fish. Commercial fish sold through interstate commerce that
are found to have levels of methyl-mercury above an "action
level" of 1 ppm (established by the FDA) cannot be sold to
the public. This level itself is below a level associated with
adverse effects. However, if you fish in contaminated waters
and eat the fish you catch, you may be exposed to higher lev-
15
-------
els of mercury. Public health advisories are issued by state
and Federal authorities for local waters that are thought to be
contaminated with mercury. These advisories can help non-
commercial (sport and subsistence) fishermen and their fami-
lies to avoid eating fish contaminated with mercury. Foods
other than fish that may contain higher-than-average levels of
mercury include wild game, such as wild birds and mammals
(bear) that eat large amounts of contaminated fish. People in
the most northern climates may be exposed to high levels of
mercury from eating meat or fat from marine mammals in-
cluding whales, dolphins, walruses, and seals. These marine
mammals are at or near the top of their marine food chain.
Plants contain very little methyl-mercury or other forms of
mercury. Mushrooms grown in mercury-contaminated soil
may contain levels of mercury that could pose some risk to
health, if large amounts were eaten.
4.2.3 FDA Advisories on Methyl-mercury
and Fish Consumption
FDA issued a consumer advisory in 1994 on methyl-mercury
and fish consumption. On January 12, 2000, FDA revised its
consumer advisory to include the following: (1) several recent,
large-scale studies of methyl-mercury exposure in human popu-
lations2; (2) recent data regarding fish consumption and mercury
concentration; (3) the health benefits of a balanced diet that in-
cludes fish; and (4) feedback from focus groups that reacted to
different types of consumer messages.3 FDA set out to maintain
a public message that was simple, direct, understandable, and
easy-to-follow. The revised advisory focused on specific fish to
"avoid" and specific fish considered "safe" to eat. The original
and revised advisories were directed primarily toward pregnant
women and women of childbearing age to protect developing
unborn children from excessive exposure to methyl-mercury
during pregnancy. The revised consumer advisory is shown in
the following text box (FDA 200la).
The FDA revised advisory recommends that pregnant women
and women of childbearing age who may become pregnant
avoid identified fish species with the highest average amounts of
methyl-mercury. FDA also added king mackerel and tilefish to
the list of fish types that should be avoided. FDA's previous ad-
visory listed only shark and swordfish. FDA, in its revised advi-
sory, gave the same general recommendation of fresh or frozen
tuna and canned tuna as general fish types having lower methyl-
mercury concentrations. This recommendation indicates that
even the at-risk population can safely eat 12 ounces per week
of most types of cooked fish. Canned tuna is one of the most
popular fish consumed by the majority of the fish-eating popula-
tion. However, according to the National Food Processors As-
sociation, as well as FDA, the consumption of canned tuna at the
highest level (the 99th percentile) is approximately 7 ounces per
week, and therefore harmful exposure to a developing unborn
child was not likely at this rate. Finally, the average methyl-mer-
cury level in fresh or frozen tuna is only a third of that found in
shark and swordfish and is actually closer to the level for canned
tuna. FDA's revised advisory also addresses nursing women and
their young children in order to protect the developing nervous
system of newborns. See Appendix F for tables providing means
and ranges for mercury in fish and shellfish.
Program contact: FDA, Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD,
20740-3835, 1-888-SAFEFOOD, orwww.cfsan.fda.gov.
Consumer Advisory, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, March 2001: An Important
Message for Pregnant Women and Women
of Childbearing Age Who May Become Pregnant
About the Risks of Mercury in Fish
Seafood can be an important part of a balanced diet for preg-
nant women. It is a good source of high-quality protein and
other nutrients and is low in fat. However, some fish con-
tain high levels of a form of mercury called methyl-mercury
that can harm an unborn child's developing nervous system
if eaten regularly. By being informed about methyl-mercury
and knowing the kinds of fish that are safe to eat, you can pre-
vent any harm to your unborn child and still enjoy the health
benefits of eating seafood.
How Does Mercury Get Into Fish? Mercury occurs natu-
rally in the environment, and it can also be released into the
air through industrial pollution. Mercury falls from the air
and can get into surface water, accumulating in streams and
oceans. Bacteria in the water cause chemical changes that
transform mercury into methyl-mercury that can be toxic.
Fish absorb methyl-mercury from water as they feed on
aquatic organisms.
How Can I Avoid Levels of Mercury That Could Harm
My Unborn Child? Nearly all fish contain trace amounts of
methyl-mercury, which are not harmful to humans. However,
long-lived, larger fish that feed on other fish accumulate the
highest levels of methyl-mercury and pose the greatest risk to
people who eat them regularly. You can protect your unborn
child by not eating these large fish that can contain high levels
of methyl-mercury:
Shark
Swordfish
King mackerel
Tilefish
While it is true that the primary danger from methyl-mercu-
ry in fish is to the developing nervous system of the unborn
child, it is prudent for nursing mothers and young children
not to eat these fish as well.
These studies included research efforts from the Seychelles, Faroes, and New Zealand.
In addition to new methyl-mercury data and feedback from focus groups, FDA also reviewed its original consumer advisory based on the
publication of the congressionally mandated National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council (NAS/NRC) report, Toxicological Effects
of Methyl-mercury, National Academy of Sciences, 2000. Also, in response to the NAS/NRC report, the Environmental Protection Agency revised
the RfD so that it was identical to the recommendations provided in the NAS/NRC report.
16
-------
Is It All Right to Eat Other Fish? Yes. As long as you select
a variety of other kinds of fish while you are pregnant or may
become pregnant, you can safely enjoy eating them as part
of a healthful diet. You can safely eat 12 ounces per week
of cooked fish. A typical serving size of fish is from 3 to 6
ounces. Of course, if your serving sizes are smaller, you can
eat fish more frequently. You can choose shellfish, canned
fish, smaller ocean fish or farm-raised fish—just pick a vari-
ety of different species.
What if I Eat More Than 12 Ounces of Fish a Week?
There is no harm in eating more than 12 ounces of fish in one
week as long as you don't do it on a regular basis. One week's
consumption does not change the level of methyl-mercury in
the body much at all. If you eat a lot of fish one week, you can
cut back the next week or two and be just fine. Just make sure
you average 12 ounces of fish a week.
Some kinds of fish are known to have much lower-than-aver-
age levels of methyl-mercury and can be safely eaten more
frequently and in larger amounts. Contact your Federal, state,
or local health department or other appropriate food safety
authority for specific consumption recommendations about
fish caught or sold in your local area.
What About the Fish Caught By My Family or Friends in
Fresh Water Lakes and Streams? Are They Safe to Eat?
There can be a risk of contamination from mercury in fresh
waters from either natural or industrial causes that would
make the fish unsafe for you or your family to eat. The En-
vironmental Protection Agency provides current advice on
fish consumption from fresh water lakes and streams. Also
check with your state or local health department to see if
there are special advisories on fish caught from waters in
your local area.
4.2.4 Northeast Waste Management
Official's Association Mercury
Program
The Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association
(NEWMOA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan interstate association
that has a membership composed of the hazardous waste, solid
waste, waste site cleanup and pollution prevention program
directors for environmental agencies in Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Rhode Island, and Vermont. NEWMOA was established by
the governors of the New England states as an official regional
organization to (1) coordinate interstate hazardous waste, solid
waste, and pollution prevention activities; (2) support state-
wide waste programs; and (3) help states articulate, promote,
and implement economically sound regional programs for the
enhancement of environmental protection. The association was
formally recognized by EPA in 1986.
NEWMOA supports a Mercury Program and dedicates a por-
tion of the NEWMOA web site, www.newmoa.org, to mercury
program areas. These program areas cover several mercury
issues and exposure prevention approaches, not necessarily
inclusive of outreach activities that focus on consumption of
contaminated fish. Major elements of the mercury web page
include background information on environmental issues re-
lated to mercury, links to other mercury resources, and docu-
ments and reports available for public use. The web site lists the
following information resources to help the NEWMOA states
achieve their goal of mercury elimination and reduction.
Reports and Fact Sheets
Instructions for Cleaning Up "Small" Mercury Spills in
Households. This seven-page report informs the public on
the proper way to clean and handle small spills or other in-
cidents involving mercury within the household. It contains
basic clean-up instructions for a small liquid mercury spill,
as well as a table of references for reporting mercury spills
and receiving professional assistance and disposal guid-
ance within the northeastern states, including Connecticut,
Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New
Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
The Mercury in Schools and Communities initiative has
sparked a host of information brochures, reports, and fact
sheets for the public. The following resources contain in-
formation on identifying and removing elemental mercury
and products containing mercury from schools and from
homes.
Getting Mercury Out of Schools: Why It's a Problem.
Where It Is. What to Do, a series of individual fact sheets
for specific school staff members (e.g., facilities manager,
science chairperson, medical personnel) on the items that
may contain mercury typically found in those areas.
Identification of Mercury Devices in Schools, a table
to assist school staff and/or state and local technical as-
sistance providers in identifying mercury materials com-
monly found in schools. Specific tables are available for
science rooms, medical offices, and school facilities.
Case Study on Mercury Elimination from Bay Path Vo-
cational Technical High School, Charlton, Massachu-
setts, a case study that describes a local effort to identify
and eliminate elemental mercury and products containing
mercury from facilities.
Eight Good Ideas for Reducing Mercury Exposure and
Pollution in your Community, a six-page pamphlet that
was developed to assist municipal officials.
Nearly Everything You Need to Know About Mercury Fe-
ver Thermometer Exchanges, a web page document that
provides many ideas for conducting and publicizing an ex-
change on the risks of mercury fever thermometers, includ-
ing a sample public service announcement, press release
and poster.
Reported Mercury Spills in the Northeast States. This
twelve-page report includes publicly available data com-
piled from environmental and public health agencies in
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont on the oc-
currence of spills of mercury. The report features several
tables that list the number of occurrences in each state.
17
-------
Clearinghouses and Databases
The Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction
Clearinghouse (IMERC). This clearinghouse provides
ongoing technical and programmatic assistance to states
that have enacted provisions of the Mercury Education and
Reduction Model Legislation. It provides a single point of
contact for industry and the public for information on mer-
cury-containing products and wastes and mercury educa-
tion and reduction programs of member states. Copies of
the Model Legislation are available at www.newmoa.org/
prevention/mercury/final_model_legislation.htm. IMERC
also has made available the Mercury Education Video, an
instructional video that provides background information
on mercury and the environment, as well as IMERC.
Mercury-added Products Database. This database pres-
ents information submitted to IMERC on the amount and
purpose of mercury in consumer products. The database
is intended to inform consumers, recyclers, policy makers
and others about products that contain intentionally added
mercury, the amount of mercury in a specific product, the
amount of mercury in a specific product line sold in the
U.S. in a given year, and manufacturers of mercury-added
products.
Mercury Topic Hub. The Mercury Topic Hub proj-
ect includes five hubs that cover general mercury issues,
mercury thermometers, mercury thermostats, mercury in
dental clinics, and metal fabrication and machining. The
general Mercury Hub provides background on the issues
related to mercury including health effects, releases to the
atmosphere, mercury in products, mercury in the environ-
ment, and fish advisories. It also covers the spectrum of
assistance and regulatory approaches focused on mercury
reduction, as well as Federal, state, and local mercury re-
duction programs.
Mercury-Reduction Programs Database. This database
includes descriptions of mercury-reduction programs un-
derway around the U.S. and profiles each project. For each
project, the database lists a brief description, the title, list
of products affected, program results, sources of funding,
and contact information.
Program contact: Terri Goldberg, NEWMOA, 129 Portland
Street, 6th floor, Boston, MA 02114, 617-367-8558 x302,
tgoldberg@newmoa.org, or www.newmoa.org.
4.2.5 United Nations Environmental
Programme's Global Mercury
Assessment
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) pub-
lished a Global Mercury Assessment report in December 2002.
The report responds to a request of the Governing Council of
UNEP to undertake a global assessment of mercury and mer-
cury compounds. The report was written with members of the
Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of
Chemicals (IOMC).
The report indicates that there are significant global adverse
impacts from mercury and its compounds, and further interna-
tional action should be taken to reduce the risks to human health
and the environment. As a result, national, regional and global
actions should be initiated as soon as possible. In the report,
the Governing Council of UNEP urged all countries to adopt
goals and take national actions to identify exposed populations
and ecosystems and reduce anthropogenic mercury releases
that impact human health and the environment. The Governing
Council also requests that UNEP initiate technical assistance
and capacity-building activities to support countries in these
mercury-reduction efforts, particularly developing countries
and countries with economies in transition.
At the Governing Council's regular session in February 2005,
members reviewed progress made in taking action against mer-
cury pollution and considered the need for further measures for
addressing the significant global adverse impacts of mercury
and its compounds. The Governing Council also considered
what further action might be taken with regard to other heavy
metals, such as lead and cadmium.
Program contact: United Nations Environment Programme,
The Secretary for Governing Council, P.O. Box 30552, Nairo-
bi, Kenya, (254 2) 623431/623411, beverly.miller@unep.org,
or www.unep.org/GC/GC23/.
4.2.6 U.S. Geological Survey Mercury
Research
USGS provides information on toxic chemicals, including met-
als such as mercury, through its Toxic Substances Hydrology
(Toxics) Program. The Toxics Program was initiated in 1982
and established to provide scientific information on the behav-
ior of toxic substances in the nation's hydrologic environments.
The Toxics Program reports on contamination of surface water,
groundwater, soil, sediment, and the atmosphere by toxic sub-
stances. The Toxics Program conducts intensive field investi-
gations and regional investigations of contamination affecting
aquatic ecosystems from nonpoint and distributed point sourc-
es. The Toxics Program is coordinated with EPA, the U.S. De-
partment of Agriculture (USDA), the Department of Defense
(DOD), the Department of Energy (DOE), the Nuclear Regula-
tory Commission (NRC), the Department of Interior (DOI), and
other agencies.
The following subsections describe specific USGS efforts that
resulted in reports or fact sheets communicating the environmen-
tal and human health risk of mercury from fish consumption.
Reports and Fact Sheets
Mercury Contamination of Aquatic Ecosystems. USGS
completed this fact sheet to describe new trends in the
investigations of mercury pollution. Recent fish-sampling
surveys have shown widespread mercury contamination
in streams, wetlands, reservoirs, and lakes in the U.S.
States have issued fish consumption advisories (FCAs)
because of mercury contamination. See Appendix G for
USGS sampling data. The document discusses the effects
of mercury bioaccumulation, human health effects of mer-
cury toxicity, ways that mercury enters the food chain, the
conversion of inorganic mercury to methyl-mercury, and
other topics related to mercury contamination.
18
-------
A National Pilot Study of Mercury Contamination of
Aquatic Ecosystems along Multiple Gradients: Bioac-
cumulation in Fishes. This report was written by William
G. Brumbaugh, David P. Krabbenhoft, Dennis R. Helsel,
and James G. Wiener and was presented at the 21st annual
meeting of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry (SETAC) in Nashville, Tennessee, Novem-
ber 12-16, 2000. This report described the national pilot
study that examined the relationship between mercury
and methyl-mercury in aquatic ecosystems. The study
involved sampling events of water, sediment, and fish in
the summer and fall of 1998 at 106 stations from 20 U.S.
watershed basins.
Mercury bioaccumulation in fishes was strongly (posi-
tively) correlated with the mercury concentration in water,
but only moderately correlated with the mercury in sedi-
ment or the total mercury in water. Of the other measured
parameters, pH, dissolved organic carbon (DOC), sulfate,
sediment loss on ignition (LOI), and the percent wetlands
of each basin were also significantly correlated with mer-
cury bioaccumulation in fishes. The best model for pre-
dicting mercury bioaccumulation included mercury in wa-
ter, pH of the water, percent wetlands in the basin, and the
acid-volatile sulfide (AVS) content of the sediment. Gen-
erally, high concentrations of mercury in water will yield
high concentrations in fish. Based on rankings by various
mercury criteria, sampling sites from the following five
study units had the greatest mercury contamination: Ne-
vada Basin and Range, South Florida Basin, Sacramento
River Basin (California), Santee River Basin and Coastal
Drainages (South Carolina), and the Long Island and New
Jersey Coastal Drainages.
Are Walleye from Lake Roosevelt Contaminated with
Mercury? This fact sheet studied the effects of mercury
on walleye and other sport fish from the upper Columbia
River and Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake (Lake Roosevelt).
Based on this report, scientists discovered that walleye
had higher concentrations of mercury than other sport
fish, and larger walleye had higher mercury concentra-
tions than smaller walleye. Researchers also discovered
that mercury concentrations in walleye fillets ranged
from 0.11 to 0.44 ppm. After reviewing these findings,
the Washington State Department of Health concluded,
"...people who regularly consume large amounts of Lake
Roosevelt walleye may be at risk of adverse health effects
from mercury and should limit their consumption of these
fish." The fact sheet also emphasized that most mercury
in fish is methyl-mercury, a highly toxic substance that
can build up in predatory fish, such as walleye, swordfish,
and tuna, and in animals that eat these fish. Methyl-mer-
cury can damage the brain, nervous system, and kidneys.
The risk is probably very low for adults who eat fish only
occasionally. The risk is greatest for developing fetuses,
children, and people who depend on sport fish for food.
Mercury also threatens the health of fish-eating wildlife
such as loons, eagles, otters, and raccoons. Also, mercury-
contaminated sport fish may adversely affect a local econ-
omy that depends on recreational fishing. In addition, the
fact sheet listed the recommended maximum consumption
rates of walleye from Lake Roosevelt. See Table 4-1.
Table 4-1. Recommended Maximum Consumption of Walleye from
Lake Roosevelt
Adults
4 pounds per month
8 meals per month
Pregnant Women
and Women in
Childbearing Years
1 pound per month
2 meals per month
Children Under 6
Years of Age
1/3 pound per month
Research Initiatives
National Assessment of Mercury in Aquatic Ecosys-
tems. USGS heads this initiative to study aquatic ecosys-
tems across the nation to identify the factors that control
where and when mercury accumulates to toxic levels in the
food chain. Ecosystems with varying source intensity (e.g.,
mining, natural, and atmospheric sources) and varying po-
tential to convert mercury to its most toxic form, methyl-
mercury, are being tested. A total of 112 sites are under-
going synoptic sampling of water, sediment, and fish, and
samples have been analyzed for mercury and the more tox-
ic form of mercury, methyl-mercury. Additionally, USGS
plans to determine if the widespread mercury problem is a
result of current mercury emissions into the atmosphere or
if it is due to mercury deposition resulting from past activi-
ties and occurrences.
Program contact: U.S. Geological Survey, Toxic Substanc-
es Hydrology Program, http://toxics.usgs.gov/regional/
mercury.html.
METAALICUS. The scientific community's current
understanding of the fate of mercury in the environment
cannot guarantee or provide reasonable assurance that sig-
nificant environmental improvements would result from
reduced emissions of mercury. To address this concern,
an international team of researchers that includes scientists
from the USGS is conducting the METAALICUS experi-
ment. With METAALICUS, researchers will add specific
mercury isotopes to an entire watershed to assess the at-
mospheric loading of mercury in Canada and the U.S. The
results of this experiment will allow the research team to
determine precisely how much and how quickly recently
added mercury enters food webs. This experiment will
provide the control necessary to examine the effects of the
one critical factor in examining mercury contamination,
mercury loading, and furthermore will also allow scientists
to distinguish newly deposited mercury from background
mercury that has accumulated over hundreds of years.
Mercury is the most common contaminant in fish in the
U.S. and Canada. Forty-two states have advisories against
fish consumption due to high mercury levels, and unac-
ceptable fish mercury concentrations exist in all Canadian
provinces and the Northwest Territories, including remote
"pristine" lakes. Of closures to fishing in Ontario, 97 per-
cent are due to mercury contamination.
As a part of METAALICUS, mercury inputs to headwater
lakes and their watersheds will be increased experimen-
tally, and mercury will be added as stable, non-radioac-
tive isotopes of inorganic mercury [Hg(II)]. An ecosystem
19
-------
approach will be used because the complex pathway of
mercury from the atmosphere to fish cannot be simulated
in laboratory experiments. Movement of the mercury and
transformations between mercury forms will be followed
through watersheds and lakes, and production of methyl-
mercury will be studied in lake sediments, uplands and
wetlands. Scientists also will study the bioaccumulation of
methyl-mercury in benthic organisms, plankton and fish.
The study will be carried out in two phases over a five-year
period, and a final report and publication of the study will
be drafted in 2004.
Program contact: Reed Harris, Tetra Tech Inc., 905-339-
0763, harrisr@idirect.com or Dr. John Rudd, Canadian
Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), and the
Freshwater Institute, 501 University Crescent, Winnipeg,
MB R3T 2N6, Canada, 204-983-5240, ruddj@dfo-mpo.
gc.ca., or www.biology.ualberta.ca/metaalicus//metaal-
icus.htm.
Aquatic Cycling of Mercury in the Everglades (ACME).
The ACME project is an interagency, multidisciplinary
study to recognize the primary mercury-cycling pathways
in the Everglades and to synthesize these pathways with a
"model" for restoration and predictive purposes. The goal
of this project is to describe the mercury contamination
problem in South Florida. For most aquatic ecosystems,
atmospheric deposition is the primary source of mercury,
although there are numerous instances of geologic and an-
thropogenic point-source contamination. There are many
sources of mercury to the atmosphere, both natural and
human related. Natural sources include outgassing from
the oceans, volcanoes, and natural mercury deposits. Coal
combustion, waste incineration, chlor-alkai production, and
metal processing are the dominant human-related sources
to the atmosphere. In ecosystems for which atmospheric
deposition is the dominant source, resulting concentrations
of total mercury in water are very low, generally less than
10 nanograms per liter (ng/L).
The challenge to scientists is to explain the series of pro-
cesses that lead to toxic or near-toxic levels of mercury
in organisms near the top of the food chain (bioaccumu-
lation), when aqueous concentrations and source-delivery
rates are so low. To understand this phenomenon adequate-
ly, scientists must apply an interdisciplinary approach in
which various components of an ecosystem (atmosphere,
biota, surface water, groundwater, and sediments) are stud-
ied contemporaneously. The purpose of this fact sheet is
to describe the mercury contamination problem in South
Florida and the interdisciplinary project that was assembled
under the auspices of the USGS South Florida Ecosystem
Program to investigate the underlying processes that cause
mercury bioaccumulation.
In response to this request from resource managers for
more scientific information on mercury cycling in the Ev-
erglades, the USGS South Florida Ecosystem Program,
South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD),
and EPA are co-funding a group of scientists to study
mercury bioaccumulation in the Everglades. Participating
scientists are from several agencies, including USGS, SF-
WMD, Florida Department of Environmental Protection,
EPA, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, and
University of Wisconsin-Madison. The overall objective
of this project is to provide resource managers scientific
information on the hydrologic, biologic, and geochemical
processes controlling mercury cycling in the Everglades.
It is anticipated, however, that information from this proj-
ect will be transferable to other ecosystems where mer-
cury problems arise. Specific areas of research among the
group includes geochemical studies of mercury, mercury
methylation and demethylation studies, DOC-mercury in-
teractions, mercury accumulation in sediments, diagenetic
processes in peat, sulfur-cycling studies, biological uptake
of mercury and lower food chain transfer pathways, and
groundwater/surface water exchange.
Program contact: David Krabbenhoft, USGS, 8505 Re-
search Way, Middleton, WI53562,608-821-3843, dpkrab-
be@usgs.gov, William H. Orem, USGS, 12201 Sunrise
Valley Drive, Reston, VA 20192, 703-648-6273, borem@
usgs.gov, George Aiken, USGS, 3215 Marine Street, Boul-
der, CO 80303, 303-541-3036, graiken@usgs.gov, Carol
Kendall, USGS, 345 Middlefield Road, MS 434, Menlo
Park, CA 94025, 650-329-4576, ckendall@usgs.gov, or
http://sofia.usgs.gov/projects/evergl_merc/.
Mercury Studies Team. The USGS Water Resources Di-
vision, Wisconsin District, has formed a Mercury Studies
Team to provide (1) expert assistance to the USGS and
other state and Federal agencies in the form of scientific
understanding of mercury in the environment; (2) methods
for collecting mercury samples in various media (e.g., wa-
ter, sediment, biota); and (3) analytical support by main-
taining a state-of-the-art mercury analysis laboratory. The
Team seeks to obtain high-quality projects through coop-
erative agreements, development of project proposals, exe-
cution of the project work elements, and timely completion
of reports. Also, the Mercury Studies Team continues to
maintain a good level of challenging work that will sustain
the professional and financial needs of the team.
Program contact: David P. Krabbenhoft, USGS, 8505
Research Way, Middleton, WI 53562, 608-821-3843,
dpkrabbe@usgs.gov, or http://infotrek.er.usgs.gov/
mercury/.
USGS Mercury Research Lab. As a part of the Mercury
Studies Team, USGS supports the Mercury Research Lab
in the Wisconsin District. Mercury has been recognized as
an environmental pollutant for several decades. The labo-
ratory provides unbiased data for the support of mercury
research projects. Support includes training of personnel
in proper collection techniques, providing sampling equip-
ment, development of new collection and analytical meth-
ods, analysis and reporting of high-quality results from
various matrices and mercury species, and consultation in
project development and interpretation of results.
Program contact: David P. Krabbenhoft, USGS, 8505
Research Way, Middleton, WI 53562, 608-821-3843,
dpkrabbe@usgs.gov, or http://infotrek.er.usgs.gov/doc/
mercury/mercury _research_lab. html.
20
-------
5.0 Case Studies: Developing and Using Data Visualization and
Data Interpretation Tools
5.1 Introduction
This chapter shows how four particular FCA programs have
successfully used a variety of data visualization and data in-
terpretation tools, often integrating several tools into their pro-
grams. All of these FCA programs rely in part on their web
sites, in addition to other tools, for effective risk communica-
tion. Understanding how these programs use this wide range of
risk communication tools "in real life" will hopefully be useful
to other programs that are considering developing or expanding
their own risk communication services.
Section 5.6 of this chapter presents a discussion of some of the
challenges that can be encountered when communicating FCA
information, particularly when the audience includes avid fish-
ers, subsistence fishers, or Native Americans.
5.2 State of Minnesota Program
5.2.1 Program Background
The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) administers the
FCA program in the state. Each spring, MDH releases its an-
nual FCA. This advisory provides guidelines on how much fish
people can safely consume while minimizing their risks from
contaminants such as mercury. In Minnesota, over 90 percent
of the advisories to limit consumption are based on levels of
mercury (MDH 2003b).
5,2.2 Effective Methods
The MDH FCA program successfully integrates several risk
communication tools, including traditional printed materials,
community presentations, and a web site. These tools provide
information that is easy to understand for people with little
prior knowledge about the risks associated with consumption
of fish contaminated with mercury. The following subsections
describe some of the risk communication tools used by MDH.
Outreach Materials
MDH publishes the FCA in an eight-page brochure titled "Eat
Fish Often?" Excerpts from this brochure are shown in Figures
5-1 and 5-2. The tables shown in Figure 5-1 are also provided
with the fishing regulations. The MDH "Eat Fish Often?" bro-
chure is included in Appendix H.
Guideline! for men, and lor w«m«n not planning la taome
Kind of fish you tat
FBI iw^F n MJRHHIE
ii yE'k-rv pf-th :
How alien inn you «nt if?
, iBTlhfrn pike, undbmd boo, bpMulh bc^
dantJ uxfch, Bofhwd dftk, vtfe sudiH torn,
hirbx, SOUJK, (Oft fafct fend, itoH loss, nut boo,
Owrtblfefc
Figure 5-1. General Population Fish Chart
Reference: Minnesota Department of Health, "Eat Fish
Often?" A Minnesota Guide to Eating Fish, March 2006.
Guideline* for pregnant wrjrnun, women planning
to heiome pregnant and chfldrva vnd*r ag» 15
Kind of liin you mat
ftth ought in Minwujlt
SiFlKh. noppi!. vdlow P"ih, bilhtuih
Mow otlma tan yno eat ill'
^ Imedavieck
tfnfajm sharttr ihaa 26 iwhe. nwfhein p4f Uwrlef Am
9) iniits, 'jwfcnmlh bss. bgHmuA toss, ihmd dthl^
Uiwl (jriWi, ndinnxlier, inn, hjitnt, wujif, (pp,
bb r wi, i«i4 Ue, ltd b«j. i
1 fflHB a •odm
» Slwi wwihlv rit Wn liing mlgiril
» Oi Iw cwMidd ipdti. kxkxtit uHid Mt
JwHDtttbbkn, -in
hpcMttJb'sMt
h fiifci^ Hbi li'di Hii '
n< K«*fs fbli |nt Aiiig n ™mim s fa |m M
Figure 5-2. Special Population Fish Chart
Reference: Minnesota Department of Health, "Eat Fish
Often?" A Minnesota Guide to Eating Fish, March 2006.
MDH also has a separate publication that provides additional
information for women of childbearing age and children; "An
Expectant Mother's Guide to Eating Minnesota Fish" is avail-
able in both English and Spanish. Both MDH brochures are
included in Appendix H. More detailed, site-specific recom-
mendations are available online at www.health.state.mn.us.
Detailed recommendations are also available in the Lake Sur-
21
-------
vey Reports produced by the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) (MDH 2003b).
MDH has reduced the amount of printed risk communication
materials that it publishes, partly for budget reasons. Currently,
the only printed materials available are "Eat Fish Often?" and
"An Expectant Mother's Guide to Eating Minnesota Fish."
Printed materials formerly included fact sheets and more de-
tailed, site-specific recommendations. The more detailed rec-
ommendations for eating fish from lakes and rivers that have
been tested for contaminants can now be obtained only online
at www.health.state.mn.us.
MDH also produces a fish magnet, shown in Figure 5-3, which
has been found to be a very popular item that makes the public
aware of the MDH FCA program (MDH 2003a).
Presentations
MDH formerly prepared printed materials for people of South-
east Asian descent. It was found, however, that verbal com-
munication is more successful for this target group, so MDH
now provides information through presentations at community
events instead. These presentations are generally conducted in
cooperation with DNR (MDH 2003a).
Web Site
The MDH web site is located at www.health.state.mn.us. As
shown in Figure 5-4, the MDH web site includes an easily ac-
cessible link to "Fish Consumption Advice."
The MDH web site includes downloadable versions of the doc-
uments currently in publication, plus tables containing fish con-
sumption guidelines for specific species and water bodies. The
MDH environmental health web site also provides information
on recent news regarding mercury (MDH 2003b).
5,2.3 Key Accomplishments
MDH was one of the first organizations to implement a com-
prehensive FCA program, and the MDH program has been suc-
cessfully used as a template for many other state programs.
Figure 5-3. Minnesota Department of Health Fish Magnet
Reference: MDH 2005.
Figure 5-4. Minnesota Department of Health Web Site
22
-------
MINNESOTA!
MDH
[DEPARTMENTOFHEALTHI
March 2006
Fish Consumption Advisory Materials
Please indicate the number of copies you want next to the items listed, below.
Brochures
Eat Fish Often?
A Minnesota Guide
to Eating Fish Our
new annual advisory
brochure. Contains
health-based advice
on eating fish from
lakes and rivers in
Minnesota. March
2006 (IC# 141-0378)
An Expectant Mother's
Guide to Eating Minnesota
Fish Whatyou should know
if you are pregnant, planning
a pregnancy, or nursing a
baby. For use in clinical or
childbirth education, and by
consumers. March 2006.
(IC# 141-0709)
Spanish Version of An
Expectant Mother's Guide
to Eating Minnesota Fish
March 2006 (ic# 141-0059)
Magnet
2x4 magnet. "Eat smaller fish, they taste
better and have fewer pollutants" (ic# 399-0406)
Limit of 300 per organization
Please print or type the street address for delivery of your order.
Name
Organization
Street Address_
City
State
Zipcode
Telephone #
Fax this form to MDH at (651) 201-4606; or mail it to us at:
Fish Consumption Advisory
Minnesota Department of Health
P.O. Box 64975
St. Paul, MN 55164-0975
Questions?
Contact the Minnesota Fish Consumption Advisory program at (651) 201-4911, or, in Greater Minnesota, 1-800/657-3908,
and press 1. To request this document in another format, call (651)201-5000, TDD (651)201-5797. Permission is given to
photocopy the materials listed on this form.
Figure 5-5. Minnesota Department of Health Order Form for FCA Materials
Reference: MDH 2006.
23
-------
5,2.4 Lessons Learned
In developing and implementing its FCA program, MDH
has learned some valuable lessons that have contributed to its
success:
• MDH has found that cooperation with other groups and
organizations improves communication and effectiveness.
For example, as previously stated, MDH and DNR jointly
provide presentations to community groups.
• MDH has also found that FCA materials can be dissemi-
nated most efficiently and cost-effectively through coop-
eration with other groups and organizations. For example,
"An Expectant Mother's Guide to Eating Minnesota Fish"
is primarily distributed through health care providers, lo-
cal public health agencies, and the Women, Infants, and
Children (WIC) Program. The WIC Program is adminis-
tered by the Food and Nutrition Service, a Federal agency
of the USDA. MDH FCA materials are also distributed
through DNR and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agen-
cy (MPCA), as well as some businesses, state parks and
community organizations. Every spring, MDH sends an
order form to all distributors. The order form used in 2006
is shown in Figure 5-5 and is also included in Appendix H
(MDH 2006).
Before MDH established statewide safe-eating guidelines,
some members of the public had the false impression that no
contaminants should be present in fish from waterbodies not
included in published lists. Since testing indicates that all fish
caught in Minnesota contain mercury at some level, MDH es-
tablished the statewide safe-eating guidelines published in "Eat
Fish Often?" to provide general guidance for commonly con-
sumed fish. The statewide safe-eating guidelines are primarily
based on typical mercury levels in fish caught throughout Min-
nesota (MDH 2006).
5,2.5 Future Plans
MDH continues to work to improve the effectiveness of its
FCA program. Addressing comments from the public is one
way in which this is accomplished. MDH also continues to add
information to its web site.
In the future, MDH would like to expand on its guidance to
include more information on the benefits of eating fish and risks
to be considered when consuming commercial fish.
5.3 State of New York Program
5-3-1 Program Background
The fish advisories program in the State of New York is admin-
istered by the New York State Department of Health (NYS-
DOH) Center for Environmental Health. Within the NYSDOH
Center for Environmental Health, the fish advisories program is
administered cooperatively by the Bureau of Toxic Substance
Assessment and the Outreach and Education Group. The Bu-
reau of Toxic Substance Assessment focuses on the technical
content, and the Outreach and Education Group focuses on
communicating information to the public.
5-3-2 Effective Methods
The NYSDOH fish advisories program successfully integrates
several risk communication tools, including traditional printed
materials, signs posted at fishing areas, and a web site. These
tools provide information that is relatively easy to understand
for people with little prior knowledge about the risks associated
with consumption of fish contaminated with mercury. The fol-
lowing subsections describe some of the risk communication
tools used by NYSDOH.
Outreach Materials
Fish advisory outreach materials published by NYSDOH for
New York State include a 32-page booklet, "2005-2006 Health
Advisories: Chemicals in Sportfish and Game," and a two-page
brochure, "Eating Sport Fish" (available in English and Span-
ish). NYSDOH also publishes a tri-fold brochure for the New
York City Reservoir System, "2005-2006 Health Advisories on
Eating Sportfish." The two brochures are included in Appen-
dix I; the booklet can be downloaded from the NYSDOH web
site at www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/fish/fish.htm (NYSDOH
2005-2006).
Also, the New York State Department of Environmental Con-
servation (NYSDEC) includes the fish advisories information
in its "Fishing Regulations Guide," which is distributed with
fishing licenses (NYSDEC 2005-2006).
In 1999, NYSDOH developed a number of promotional items
designed to increase public awareness of its fish advisories
program. Funding for these promotional materials was pro-
vided through two grants: the Hudson River Fish Advisories
Outreach and Education Program, funded by EPA, and the
Great Lakes Consortium Sportfish Advisory Program, funded
by ATSDR through the State of Wisconsin. The promotional
items were a poster, a tote bag, a T-shirt, a bandana, a magnet,
a memo pad, and a children's book cover. The magnet and the
tote bag are shown in Figures 5-6 and 5-7, respectively. The
promotional items were distributed through a network of com-
munity organizations. This promotional campaign also includ-
ed public service announcements broadcast on radio in English
and Spanish (NYSDOH undated). Contaminants of concern in
the Hudson River are PCBs, but outreach approaches and the
methods chosen for raising awareness could be applied to other
contaminants.
Learn about chemicals
Figure 5-6. New York State Department of Health Fish Magnet.
24
-------
I
**:
Learn a Haul
chemicals in
fish V*u catch...
1600-458-1198
Figure 5-7. New York State Department of Health Tote Bag.
Web Site
NYSDOH fish advisory information is available online at
http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/fish/fish.htm. This infor-
mative web page includes a link to the FDA advisory regarding
mercury contamination in fish and also contains contact infor-
mation for related agencies and organizations. The NYSDOH
booklet, "2005-2006 Health Advisories: Chemicals in Sportfish
and Game," can be downloaded from this web page (NYSDOH
2005-2006). Fish advisory information provided by NYSDOH
is also featured prominently on the NYSDEC web site.
5-3,3 Key Accomplishments
When developing fish advisory signs to post along the Hudson
River, NYSDOH performed focus group testing to increase the
likelihood that the signs would effectively communicate fish ad-
visory information to the target audience. The NYSDOH docu-
mented its focus group testing results in a report titled "Hudson
River Fish Advisories Outreach and Education Project: The
Sign Development Process." This report explains that "two
clearly divergent perspectives emerged" during the focus group
discussions. The white male groups consistently expressed the
perspective that the message presented on the signs should be
"very short and non-threatening, with a graphic that would at-
tract people who fish." The focus group of African-Americans
and Latinos, however, felt that the message presented on the
signs should be "very strong, highlight individuals most at risk,
and provide a graphic that would be informative for people with
low literacy skills" (NYSDOH 1999).
Based on the widely divergent results obtained during focus
group testing, NYSDOH decided to produce two different signs,
one to be posted north of the Catskill Bridge where fish contain
higher levels of contaminants and one to be posted south of the
bridge where contaminant levels are lower. Figure 5-8 shows
the sign posted north of the Catskill bridge; Figure 5-9 shows
the sign posted south of the Catskill bridge (NYSDOH 1999).
5-3-4 Lessons Learned
In developing and implementing its fish advisories program,
NYSDOH has learned some valuable lessons that have contrib-
uted to the success of the program:
• As discussed in Subsection 5.3.3, cultural differences af-
fect how people perceive risks associated with fish. It is
therefore important that the message on a given sign is
appropriate for the local community, as well as being ap-
propriate for the contamination level of the fish found in
the posted body of water.
• NYSDOH has found that cooperation with local organiza-
tions improves communication and effectiveness. This
cooperation maximizes resources, but more importantly, it
makes it possible to develop risk communication materials
that are the best possible "fit" for each community. Within
a given community, NYSDOH works with one or more
groups that provide expertise regarding how fish advisory
information is best communicated in that community.
• NYSDOH has also found that fish advisory information
can be disseminated most efficiently and cost-effectively
through cooperation with other groups and organizations.
For example, NYSDOH provided fish advisory training
to nutritionists employed by the WIC Program, who were
then able to convey this information to women of child-
bearing age. NYSDOH also worked with the WIC Pro-
gram to develop fish advisory text for a WIC newsletter.
When working with local groups, NYSDOH feels that its pri-
mary role is to ensure that fish advisory information is com-
municated accurately (ensuring, for example, that local groups
do not convey a "do not eat the fish you catch" message unless
required by the local situation).
5-3-5 Future Plans
Ongoing efforts at NYSDOH include working with more in-
dividual communities to develop appropriate signage for their
waterbodies.
NYSDOH is currently evaluating the results of interviews it
conducted during the summer of 2002. NYSDOH received
funding from the ATSDR Great Lakes Consortium Sportfish
Advisory Program. This funding was used to conduct one-on-
one interviews with nearly 400 people across the state to learn
how the public perceives the messages that NYSDOH is trying
to convey. The interviews targeted a cross-section of the New
York State population and included the use of Spanish and Rus-
sian translators to allow effective communication. After NYS-
DOH completes its analysis of the interviews, it plans to use
these results to improve communication.
NYSDOH recently provided assistance with a grant proposal
developed and submitted by the W. Haywood Burns Envi-
ronmental Education Center. This center is an environmental
25
-------
Warning!
Fish and crabs from
these waters
contain
chemicals
and may be
harmful to eat,
especially for women
and children.
Learn more/ Call NYS Department of Heallti
1-800-456-1158
Figure 5-8. New York State Department of Health FCA Sign, North
Catskill Bridge
Reference: NYSDOH 1999.
Notice!
Some fish and
crabs from these
waters may be
harmful to eat.
Learn moreJ Call
NYS Department of Health
1^00^458-1158
Figure 5-9. New York State Department of Health FCA Sign, South
Catskill Bridge
Reference: NYSDOH 1999.
justice group that works in an African-American community
in Albany, NY, and is extremely active in raising awareness
of fish advisories in its community. If the W. Haywood Burns
Environmental Education Center obtains this grant, the group
plans to hire someone from within the community to spend time
out on the water talking with fishers and conveying fish advi-
sory information.
5.4 Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission Program
5.4.1 Program Background
The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIF-
WC) is "an agency of eleven Ojibwe nations in Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and Michigan with off-reservation treaty rights to
hunt, fish and gather in treaty-ceded lands" (GLIFWC web
site). In 1991, the Biological Services Division of GLIFWC
began testing walleye for mercury contamination. By 1995,
tribal leaders directed the division to perform additional wall-
eye testing and provide test results to tribal members in a user-
friendly manner. In 1996, they received a grant from ATSDR
through the Ojibwe Health Study, and the funding was used to
test walleye from numerous lakes. The resulting data were used
to develop maps showing mercury concentrations in walleye
collected from lakes in which tribal members fish. These maps
have been revised several times to improve their user-friendli-
ness (GLIFWC 2003).
5,4.2 Effective Methods
GLIFWC's set of maps showing mercury concentrations in
walleye from area lakes serves as the basis for the FCA pro-
gram. The maps are designed to be relatively easy to understand
and use. The following subsections describe the maps and other
risk communication tools used by GLIFWC.
GLIFWC Maps
GLIFWC has developed maps for six regions, which visually
convey the mercury concentrations observed in walleye from
lakes harvested by the following six tribes: Bad River, Lac
Courtes Oreilles, Lac du Flambeau, Mole Lake, Red Cliff, and
St. Croix. There are two maps for each region: one map for
sensitive populations (pregnant women, women of childbear-
ing age, and children under 15 years old) and one for other in-
dividuals (women beyond childbearing age and men). Figure
5-10, on page 26, shows the two maps for the lakes harvested
by Lac Courtes Oreilles; the map for the sensitive populations
is presented at the top and the map for other individuals is pre-
sented in the bottom portion of Figure 5-10. The complete set
of maps is included in Appendix J and can be obtained from the
GLIFWC web site at www.glifwc.org.
GLIFWC selected inland lakes and walleye for the mercury fish
advisory based on the fact that tribal members use traditional
methods to harvest walleye each spring from scores of lakes
within the ceded territories, and walleye make up over 95 per-
cent of the fish harvested (Krueger 2003). In addition, based on
a five-year study of fish consumed by tribal members, approxi-
26
-------
Finding Safer Ogaa (Walleye) in Lakes Harvested by Lac Courts Oreilles
NELSON L /
4 =P.^ERL i,«TLANLL Lomt« CT.BM L MAP FOR USE 8V PREGNANT WOMEN.
TNS TOJEHCATFL TWS> WOMEN OF CHILDBEARING AGE
S"™L'^. f-!: ANQCHILDREN UNDER 15 YEARSOLD
TV tEBLL
ROUND L^B ** . g"
LITTLE ROUND L -__ *• H*
---!F WW MOOSE L
ORINDSTONE L^^ "^_.jlllf
""" WHITCFISHL MASON L
r^"~~\^ ""• SlIJDl f
f
4 ' '"' SSSABW5AMA L L OF THE PINES
tf L CHETAC
aRCHL* 'WWOFilLL
MLLEL«:5L THOKNAPPLC FL
m\ LAOYSMITH FL
\ ,^-
AM.COVI X/^^
MINNESOTA ^
POTATO L JUtASKI L
^ —
"H^REaDE LAKES
ROUND L StfNDL .. |T
'"'ijii 1 9 ^HOLCO«EFl
NELSON L Jf
1 4 SPUDCRL 1OSTLANDL LOWEDICLAML
*^^ AjByBPC
me COURTS ORBLLES iSlU' TPJ' '^^^1»
|~ WHITEFISH L MASON
r^"^---^^ ~~- SANDL ,.
^ ' "" aSSABAGAUA L L OF THE PINE
/L,
fflRCHL^ 'WIKDFBLLL
fflORNAPPLE FL
MLLEl_*CSL \ LADTSUITHFL
m\ >-""
AMACOY L ^*y/
^
POTATO L ^PULASKIL
**FiRESlOE LAKES
RtXJNDL SfcNDL «^^
j£^ HOL.COMBE FL
GTTEP L *
L EAU «Lft*e
Ogaa Low In Mercury
gopw wndtor ra.Ti 15 mc*in= low n rnsrciiTV
No .r '.-r-r-iin.-.-! .j.d icri*
LSI •: Jilll f -I'-n !-. R -:« s'iM-J
L
f
OTTER L *
LEAUCtAIRE
MAP FOfl USE BY WOMEN BEYOND
CHPLDBEAfllNG AGE AND SV MEN
1 Q
Figure 5-10. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission Maps of Lakes Harvested by Lac
Courtes Oreilles
Reference: GLIFWC Web Site, www.glifwc.org.
mately 60 percent of the fish consumed were walleye, and 80
percent of the fish consumed were top predator fish (GLIFWC
2003).
In developing the maps for the sensitive populations, GLIFWC
defined walleye "low in mercury" as those containing less than
0.5 milligrams of mercury per kilogram of fish. In the maps for
other individuals, walleye "low in mercury" are defined as those
containing less than 1 milligram of mercury per kilogram of
27
-------
fish. These levels were selected based on the state of Wisconsin
fish consumption guidance available when the maps were de-
veloped. (The data used in the maps are from GLIFWC and the
State of Wisconsin, via a cooperative agreement.) In 2001, the
State of Wisconsin revised its guidance to incorporate EPA's
current RfD; the GLIFWC maps have not yet been updated to
reflect this new guidance. GLIFWC has applied for funding to
be used to update the maps to incorporate EPA's RfD for mer-
cury in fish (GLIFWC 2003).
The maps use an intuitive color-coding scheme. For example,
red, which is commonly understood to signify "stop" or "dan-
ger," is used for lakes in which walleye of all sizes have been
found to contain mercury at concentrations above those con-
sidered acceptable for consumption. Blue is used for lakes in
which walleye of all sizes have been found to contain only
low concentrations of mercury. Additional clearly differenti-
ated colors (orange, yellow, and green) indicate lakes in which
walleye of various specified sizes have been found to contain
mercury at concentrations above those considered acceptable
for consumption.
"Spearer" Meetings
A portion of the tribal members participate in spearfishing.
The spearfishing is highly organized by the tribes, which hold
"spearer" meetings before each walleye season begins. Upon
a tribe's request, a representative of the GLIFWC Biological
Services Division attends these meetings to provide informa-
tion and distribute maps to all spearers. When the spearers catch
fish, they share it with other tribal members. Since the spearers
are provided with information regarding mercury contamina-
tion in fish, they can distribute this information to the other
tribal members while they are sharing the fish they have caught
(GLIFWC 2003).
Web Site
The GLIFWC maps are easily accessible online at www.glifwc.
5,4.3 Key Accomplishments
Many fish advisories publish limits on food intake using very
specific sizes, amounts, and frequencies. GLIFWC has tried to
avoid this because fish consumption is such a major component
of tribal culture. Therefore, GLIFWC's goal is to inform tribal
members so that they can make choices to reduce their risks.
The maps are a good tool for this, since tribal members can
reduce their risks by choosing fish from lakes in which the fish
contain lower levels of mercury. GLIFWC is also working to
convey the message that large predator fish contain more con-
taminants than smaller fish (GLIFWC 2003).
The map shown at the top of Figure 5-10 provides an excellent
illustration of the fish consumption choices available to the Lac
Courtes Oreilles tribal members. The lakes immediately adja-
cent to the Lac Courtes Oreilles reservation include Lac Cour-
tes Oreilles and Lake Chippewa. As shown in Figure 5-10, Lac
Courtes Oreilles is a "blue lake." Data indicate that all wall-
eye from this lake contain only low concentrations of mercury.
Lake Chippewa, however, is a "red lake." Data indicate that any
size walleye from this lake can contain mercury at concentra-
tions above those recommended for sensitive populations.
Numerous observations by GLIFWC staff indicate that the maps
are being used by tribal members. For example, a tribal member
was pleased to learn that he could once again consume walleye
less than 18 inches from the Gile Flowage. He had avoided fish-
ing that lake for several years because he had heard that the fish
were too contaminated to safely eat (GLIFWC 2003).
5,4.4 Lessons Learned
• In general, tribal members consider mercury contamina-
tion in fish (and all other environmental issues) to be a
serious matter, and FCA information spreads quickly
within tribes. GLIFWC has therefore learned to commu-
nicate risks in a manner that allows tribal members to be
informed so that they can react properly, without overre-
acting and unnecessarily impacting their culture.
• Obtaining funding through grants from other agencies and
organizations is essential to GLIFWC's FCA program
because this work is not included in GLIFWC's core mis-
sion funded by Congress.
• The tribal members are interested in the quality of the
data used to develop the maps. While presenting informa-
tion at spearer meetings, the GLIFWC Biological Services
Division has received questions regarding the number of
fish tested from each lake and how recently fish from a
given lake have been tested.
5-4-5 Future Plans
GLIFWC has applied for funding from EPA's National Center
for Environmental Research (NCER) Science to Achieve Re-
sults (STAR) Program. If received, this funding will be used
to update the GLIFWC maps to incorporate EPA's RfD for
mercury in fish. The grant would also be used to fund a study
to evaluate and document the effectiveness of these maps in
communicating risk-based information and the influence of
these maps on the behavior of tribal members. GLIFWC would
also expand its maps to include four more tribes, at which point
maps will be available for 10 of the 11 member tribes.4
5.5 San Francisco Bay FCA and Risk
Communication Program
5-5-1 Program Background
FCAs for California, including the San Francisco Bay, are is-
sued by the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/
EPA) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OE-
4 The eleventh tribe would not be included because members of that tribe fish almost exclusively in Lake Superior, and a different inter-tribal
organization evaluates that lake (GLIFWC 2003).
28
-------
HHA). OEHHA works in cooperation with other agencies and
organizations to communicate San Francisco Bay FCA informa-
tion to the public. This cooperation is vital to the success of the
program, especially since the San Francisco Bay is surrounded
by nine different counties and has hundreds of fishing locations.
The California Department of Health Services (CDHS) is par-
ticularly involved in these outreach efforts.
5-5,2 Effective Methods
One unique aspect of the San Francisco Bay Program is the ex-
tent to which OEHHA and CDHS have worked to evaluate the
effectiveness of FCA communication efforts. This case study
focuses on the surveys that have been performed to evaluate the
public response to FCA information.
OEHHA Angler Survey
In December 1993, OEHHA issued a revised FCA for striped
bass in San Francisco Bay, based on mercury levels. Based on
recommendations from an advisory task force, OEHHA also
developed multilingual signs to inform the public of the ad-
visory. In October 1994, these signs were posted at Berkeley
Pier and Dumbarton Pier. In June and July 1995, OEHHA per-
formed a survey at the Berkeley public fishing pier to evalu-
ate the effectiveness of the signs and to assess anglers' general
awareness of contaminants in fish from San Francisco Bay. The
results of this survey are published in an OEHHA report titled
"Angler Survey: Analysis of Sign Effectiveness and Angler
Awareness of San Francisco Bay Fish Consumption Advisory"
(Cal/EPA 1997).
Each of the signs posted in 1994 was 24 inches by 36 inches
and contained text in English, Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese,
Cambodian, and Korean. The English text was as follows (Cal/
EPA 1997):
WARNING
STRIPED BASS IN THE BAY CONTAIN
MERCURY, A CHEMICAL THAT CAN CAUSE
HEALTH PROBLEMS.
DO NOT EAT STRIPED BASS OVER
35 INCHES LONG.
CHILDREN UNDER 6 YEARS, PREGNANT AND
NURSING WOMEN SHOULD EAT NONE AT ALL,
OR NOT MORE THAN 1/2 LB. PER MONTH. THEY
SHOULD NOT EAT ANY STRIPED BASS
OVER 27 INCHES.
ADULTS SHOULD EAT NO MORE THAN
4 LBS. PER MONTH.
CHILDREN AGES 6-15 SHOULD EAT NO MORE
THAN 2 LBS. PER MONTH.
During the 1995 survey, 520 anglers were interviewed using
a prepared questionnaire. The interviewers included native
speakers of all of the languages represented on the sign. Fol-
lowing is a summary of the responses obtained during the 1995
survey (Cal/EPA 1997):
• In total, 67.5 percent of the anglers reported having heard
of or seen the FCA. Almost 54 percent of the anglers re-
called exposure to the advisory without prompting, 11.5
percent reported seeing signs after general prompting, and
2.5 percent remembered seeing signs when asked specifi-
cally if they had seen the sign at the Berkeley pier. The
remainder of the discussion in the report is based on the
survey results from the 54 percent of anglers who recalled
the advisory without prompting (referred to as the "first
recall group").
• Awareness of the advisory came primarily from signs
(39.9 percent), but also from newspapers (21.3 percent)
and from friends (9.8 percent).
• Survey results indicated that most of the anglers who were
aware of the advisory had a general understanding of its
meaning.
• Only about 27 percent of anglers reported changing their
eating habits based on the advisory. Interview results
indicated that this low number was primarily because an-
glers had not previously caught or consumed striped bass
in excess of the advisory limits. Survey results among
anglers who changed their eating habits were "stopped
eating certain kinds of bay fish" (31.5 percent), "eat more
commercial fish" (12.3 percent), stopped eating fish en-
tirely (8.2 percent), and stopped eating fish caught in the
bay (8.2 percent). Only one angler reported preparing or
cooking fish differently as a result of the warning.
• Just over one third of the anglers reported having been
aware of the advisory or of pollution in the bay before
seeing the sign. English-speaking anglers were more
likely than others to report previous knowledge of the
advisory.
• Many anglers reported having been surprised or con-
cerned when they first saw the signs, and a few were
angry.
• Anglers were also asked what they consider the best way
of communicating fish advisories. The most popular an-
swer was signs posted at fishing locations (26.7 percent),
followed by television (17.1 percent), newspaper (13.1
percent), and radio (8.3 percent).
• Following the advice of fish advisories was seen as "very
important" by 61.5 percent of the anglers, "important"
by 24.9 percent, "not too important" by 10.4 percent, and
"not important at all" by 2.7 percent of the anglers. Eng-
lish-speaking anglers gave more importance to following
the advice of health advisories than did Spanish-speaking
or Asian language-speaking anglers.
The angler survey report concludes that signs are an effective
method for communicating FCA information, but that other
communication methods are also important. The survey also
demonstrates differences among ethnic groups in their views
of advisories as well as their preferred communication meth-
ods. The report states that both of these findings are consistent
29
-------
with the results of other surveys of this type and have important
implications for future education and outreach programs (Cal/
EPA 1997).
San Francisco Bay Seafood Consumption Study
In 1998, the San Francisco Bay Estuary Institute's Regional
Monitoring Program funded the San Francisco Bay Seafood
Consumption Study, which was performed by CDHS (CDHS
200la and b). The results of this study are summarized in two
fact sheets, "San Francisco Bay Seafood Consumption Study:
General Information" and "San Francisco Bay Seafood Con-
sumption Study: Information for People Who Fish." Both fact
sheets were published in April 2001 and are included in Ap-
pendix K.
Before the study was performed, various efforts were made
to communicate the most recent OEHHA FCA to the public.
Communication efforts were coordinated through a task force,
which included community-based organizations as well as
state, county, and city agencies. The primary goal was to post
signs in as many fishing areas as possible, since fishing access
to San Francisco Bay is possible from a wide variety of loca-
tions. Some of these locations are state, county, or city facili-
ties, such as public piers. Fishing access is also possible from
privately owned marinas and other private facilities. To reach
as many people as possible, the cities and counties surrounding
San Francisco Bay were encouraged to post signs. Some local
agencies used slightly different versions of the signs, but the
overall message was coordinated through the task force. Com-
munity-based organizations also helped communicate fish advi-
sory information by incorporating it into their materials and by
sponsoring safe cooking fairs and other events (CDHS 2003).
The San Francisco Bay Seafood Consumption Study included
interviews of over 1,300 anglers during a 12-month period in
1998 and 1999 (CDHS 2001aandb). Interviews were conduct-
ed at fishing locations, but not necessarily at locations where
signs were posted (CDHS 2003). Each interviewer spoke Eng-
lish and at least one other language, such as Spanish, Vietnam-
ese, Cantonese, or Mandarin. Following is a summary of the
responses obtained during the study (CDHS 200la and b):
• Of the anglers, 87 percent reported consuming fish from
the bay. The ethnicity of these consumers was as fol-
lows: Caucasian (43 percent), Asian (30 percent), Latino
(14 percent), and African-American (9 percent). (For the
remaining 4 percent of the consumers, ethnicity was re-
ported as "other" or was not reported.)
• The anglers who reported consuming fish from the bay
were asked how much fish they consume. Following are
survey results regarding the amount of fish from the bay
consumed during the 4 weeks prior to the interview: 80
percent reported eating about one meal or less, 10 percent
reported eating about two meals, and another 10 percent
reported eating more than two meals.
• Of those who reported consuming fish from the bay, only
10 percent reported consumption levels above those rec-
ommended by the advisory. Those who reported exceed-
ing the recommended consumption levels included an-
glers from all ethnic groups and backgrounds, but Asians
and African-Americans were more likely to exceed the
advisory levels.
• The highest fish consumption levels were reported by
African-Americans and Filipinos; the lowest levels were
reported by Caucasians.
• Of the anglers, 61 percent were aware of the advisory for
the San Francisco Bay. However, "only 34 percent of an-
glers were aware of one or more of the recommendations
in the health advisory, such as limiting how much fish
they ate."
• Latino and Asian anglers were less likely to be aware of
the advisory than were African-American or Caucasian
anglers. Awareness of the advisory was found to be pro-
portional to both income and education.
The San Francisco Bay Seafood Consumption Study recom-
mended continued outreach and education efforts, including
posting of additional signs. The study also recommended out-
reach "targeted toward anglers who eat more than the advi-
sory recommends, or whose consumption habits place them at
higher risk" (CDHS 2001a). Information from the San Fran-
cisco Bay Seafood Consumption Study was used during the
development of new signs to communicate current advisory
recommendations.
Advisory Signs
After completing the San Francisco Bay Seafood Consumption
Study, CDHS worked with task forces and community groups
to obtain input in the development of new advisory signs. This
development process was completed in 2002. Figure 5-11, on
page 30, shows the content of the new sign (the actual sign,
however, is yellow, not the blue shown in Figure 5-11). The
content of the sign is also included in Appendix K. Each sign is
about 18 by 24 inches and is produced from flexible plastic. The
California Department of Fish and Game funded the production
of 1,000 signs costing $2.25 each.
The signs are being posted by the health offices of the nine coun-
ties surrounding the San Francisco Bay. The sign, as shown in
Figure 5-11, includes an empty box in the lower right-hand cor-
ner. This space was left empty for each county to insert local
information, including a telephone number for people to call
if they have questions. CDHS distributed the signs with sheets
of blank stickers so each county can print its own information
stickers using a laser printer, then add a sticker to each sign in
the empty box.
Web Site
The OEHHA web site, located at www.oehha.ca.gov/fish.html,
includes numerous links and downloadable documents. The an-
gler survey discussed in section 5.5.2 is one of the many docu-
ments that can be downloaded.
30
-------
WARNING
Fish in the San Francisco Bay have chemicals that may harm your health. Pregnant
and breastfeeding women, and children under six years should eat no more than one
meal of fish a month. Other adults may safely eat up to two meals of fish a month.
dc Son
•vuttJiUta ipJilliM J* I^JT |HHJ«-*I
jinijr wu Hlml. Lto *Aii|*rn
e^mudan. y jnufiunimfo. *i
fLittaitrt riAjtrinrAvi* ii-ItJttta
i» dfibvn dt «"T«f *nJ» *• ima
ccfiitali dr Hfe pnuda al ntv
iJtifji Jdjhji. IW-i-n ris*** nm
KpikU hitfi [fas WOT jl ran.
J' JnJ 11*^ I
li .'. mil |Ui *
j I^M IUKUU
k^VHTW nf, ilV
nim nj Iji*,, W
Pregn.im women
Breastfeeding women
Children under 6 years
1 MEAL A MONTH
NO Si ripen) Bass nver 27"
X
NO shark
Adulfe
2 MEALS A MONTH
141 limn nn F.4Pi-»<
NO Striped Bass over 35"
X
Cs l-on? Ang V)nh 5ar
c*ft «mr h* 0H> sic mite
WOng t« ptn> IK* mtfrfl H
mp fling eho (OH b . ¥4 nd^ng
c pi om Aid $ US Oi ntm n I
cr^ md-1 BiA
rf tint c6m
n 60 Cfl BKMIQi HP^ llfJJV
M- Iniiii-. Ji« in' All iiMni ncrpt o-nlnwin, jr*rtvpvh-t, hiiii*>(; and until, fthrfh rr^iuin n^M
EAT BAY FISH SAFELY
Figure 5-11. 2002 San Francisco Bay Sign
Reference: CDHS 2003 and California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Web
Site, www.oehha.ca.gov.
Each time OEHHA issues a new advisory, a fact sheet is devel-
oped to communicate this advisory to the public. For example,
OEHHA has published guidelines for limiting consumption of
fish from Lake Pillsbury, based on observed levels of mercury.
This information is published in a report and summarized in a
fact sheet, both of which can be downloaded from the OEHHA
web site.
5-5,3 Key Accomplishments
As stated above, one unique aspect of the San Francisco Bay
Program is the extent to which OEHHA and CDHS have
worked to evaluate the effectiveness of FCA communication
efforts. Both the angler survey and the San Francisco Bay Sea-
food Consumption Study included interviews of large numbers
of anglers. The information obtained from these surveys and
the associated studies has been used to improve the communi-
cation of FCAs, particularly in the development of signs posted
at fishing areas.
5.5.4 Lessons Learned
By studying the effectiveness of the San Francisco Bay FCA
program, OEHHA and CDHS have learned some valuable les-
sons (Cal/EPA 2003, CDHS 2003):
Task forces are helpful for allowing multiple groups and agen-
cies to make the best use of whatever funding is available and
to ensure that consistent information is being communicated to
the public. However, even with task forces, communication is
not perfect and there can be discrepancies in the information
published by different groups and agencies.
Numerous other "lessons learned" from the angler survey and
the San Francisco Bay Seafood Consumption Study are pre-
sented in Subsection 5.5.2.
31
-------
5-5,5 Future Plans
OEHHA will continue to evaluate data received from multiple
agencies and to develop FCAs for California. Ongoing OEHHA
studies are reported on its web site at www.oehha.ca.gov. Other
ongoing OEHHA efforts include presentations of information
on advisories and chemical toxicity at public forums. OEHHA
also holds public workshops for new advisories during which
the public can comment on the advisories and on communica-
tion materials. OEHHA interacts with the fishing public at fairs
and festivals, such as the Lake Oroville annual salmon festi-
val, and provides demonstrations on healthy fish preparation
methods while talking to the public about fish consumption and
health. OEHHA is developing a fish consumption brochure for
California in six languages and will continue to develop educa-
tional materials on safe consumption of fish.
After publishing the San Francisco Bay Seafood Consumption
Study, CDHS received a small grant to work with four commu-
nity-based organizations. CDHS passed this funding on to the
organizations for their use in communicating EGA information.
One organization developed materials in six Asian languages.
Another organization developed a kit it could use during meet-
ings regarding nutrition and health issues. CDHS continues to
work with these organizations and has assisted them in writing
a proposal for a grant to further this work.
CDHS is currently developing informational postcards in eight
languages (a different postcard for each language). One of the
postcard languages is Samoan because DHS received a request
to provide information in Samoan, which is not included on the
sign. One side of each postcard presents the same information
presented on the sign. The other side of each postcard contains
information regarding preparation and cooking of fish to mini-
mize consumption of contaminants.
5.6 Risk Communication Challenges
Communication of EGA information holds numerous challeng-
es, particularly when the audience includes avid fishers, subsis-
tence fishers, or Native Americans. The position of one Native
American group was presented by Dr. Stuart Harris during the
2001 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish, in his presenta-
tion titled "Impacts of Fish Contaminants on Native American
Culture." The following summary of Dr. Harris's presentation
is taken from the proceedings of that forum:
Dr. Stuart Harris, of the Confederated Tribes of the
Umatilla Indian Reservation, gave a personal account
of the impacts on Native American culture resulting
from fish contaminants and fish advisories. For his
Columbia River Basin tribe, nearly 99 percent of the
fish in the river are gone, and every remaining fish is
contaminated to a greater or lesser extent. Dr. Harris
described how his culture depends on exercising all
the practices, activities, and lifestyles developed from
a partnership with the ecology of the river system. He
compares the impact on his culture of this loss of fish-
ing and fish consumption with the loss of reading in the
mainstream American culture. How would American
lives change if people were asked to give up reading,
and how would their lives change if a core attribute
of mainstream culture were affected? Such is the loss
for those Native American peoples whose culture has
evolved in close association with the fish. While fish
advisories may be needed, they are only useful as an
interim short-term measure. EPA needs to set goals
and take action in developing multimedia and water-
shed approaches to permitting. Losing fish means los-
ing more than the health benefits of eating fish; it also
means losing ceremonies, identity, and religion for
Native American tribal peoples (Harris 2001).
The full text of Dr. Harris's presentation is included in Appen-
dix L (Harris 2001).
32
-------
6.0 References
ADA 2003. American Dental Association. Dental Amalgam:
Myths vs. Facts, 2003.
ATSDR 1999. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Reg-
istry. Toxicological Profile for Mercury, March 1999.
Brumbaugh, et al. 2000. A National Pilot Study of Mercury
Contamination of Aquatic Ecosystems Along Multiple Gra-
dients: Bioaccumulation in Fishes, 2000.
Cal/EPA 1997. California Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OE-
HHA), Pesticide and Environmental Toxicology Section.
Angler Survey: Analysis of Sign Effectiveness and Angler
Awareness of San Francisco Bay Fish Consumption Advi-
sory, January 1997.
Cal/EPA 2003. California Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OE-
HHA), Pesticide and Environmental Toxicology Section.
Conversation with Dr. Margy Gassel, April 30, 2003.
Cal/EPA, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
(OEHHA) web site, www.oehha.ca.gov.
CDC 200 la. Centers for Disease Control. Blood and Hair Mer-
cury Levels in Young Children and Women of Childbearing
Age - United States, 1999, March 2, 2001.
CDC 200 Ib. Centers for Disease Control. Fact Sheet: Dental
Amalgam Use and Benefits, September 2001.
CDHS 2001a. California Department of Health Services, Envi-
ronmental Health Investigations Branch. San Francisco Bay
Seafood Consumption Study: General Information, April
2001.
CDHS 2001b. California Department of Health Services, Envi-
ronmental Health Investigations Branch. San Francisco Bay
Seafood Consumption Study: Information for People Who
Fish, April 2001.
CDHS 2003. California Department of Health Services, Envi-
ronmental Health Investigations Branch. Conversation with
Ian Walker, May 1,2003.
EXTOXNET 1993. Extension Toxicology Network Toxicol-
ogy Information Briefs: Bioaccumulation, September 1993.
Factor-Livtak, et al. 2003. Mercury Derived from Dental Amal-
gams and Neuropsychologic Function. Environ Health Per-
spectives 111(5): 719-723, May 2003.
FDA 1994. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Mercury In
Fish: Cause For Concern? September 1994.
FDA 2001a. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Consumer
Advisory: An Important Message For Pregnant Women and
Women of Childbearing Age Who May Become Pregnant
About the Risks of Mercury in Fish, March 2001.
FDA 200Ib. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Office of Seafood, Mer-
cury Levels in Seafood Species, May 2001.
FDA 2003. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA Talk Pa-
per, FDA's Advisory on Methyl-mercury in Fish, April 8,
2003.
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC),
Biological Services Division. Conversation with Kory
Groetsch, April 25, 2003.
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC)
web site, www.glifwc.org.
Guallar, et al. 2002. Mercury, Fish Oils, and the Risk of Myo-
cardial Infarction. New England Journal of Medicine, 347
(22): 1747-1753, November 28, 2002.
Harris, S. 2001. Impacts of Fish Contamination on Native
American Culture. Proceedings of the National Forum on
Contaminants in Fish, May 6 and 9, 2001, August 2001.
Krueger, J. Open Water Spearing in Northern Wisconsin by
Chippewa Indians During 2002, Great Lakes Indian Fish
and Wildlife Commission, Administrative Report 2003-03,
2003.
Mason, R.P., et al. 1994. The Biogeochemical Cycling of El-
emental Mercury: Anthropogenic Influences. Geochim Cos-
mochim Acta #58(15): 3191-3198, 1994.
MDH 2003a. Minnesota Department of Health. Conversations
with Patricia McCann, April 22 and May 2, 2003.
MDH 2003b. Minnesota Department of Health. News Release,
April 22, 2003.
MDH 2005. Minnesota Department of Health. Fish Consump-
tion Advisory Materials. May 2005.
MDH 2006. Minnesota Department of Health. "Eat Fish Of-
ten?" A Minnesota Guide to Eating Fish, March 2006.
Minnesota Department of Health, web site, www.health.state.
mn.us
33
-------
NYSDEC 2005-2006. New York State Department of Envi-
ronmental Conservation. Fishing Regulations Guide, 2005-
2006.
NYSDOH 1999. New York State Department of Health, Center
for Environmental Health, Outreach and Education Group.
Hudson River Fish Advisories Outreach and Education
Project: The Sign Development Process, April 1999.
NYSDOH 2005-2006. New York State Department of Health,
Center for Environmental Health, Bureau of Toxic Sub-
stance Assessment. 2005-2006.
NYSDOH undated. New York State Department of Health,
Center for Environmental Health, Outreach and Education
Group.
NRC 2001. National Research Council. The National Research
Council's Report on Toxicological Effects of Methyl-mer-
cury, July 11, 2001.
OSHA 1999. Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Occupational Safety and Health Guideline for Mercury Va-
por, April 1999.
RTI 2001. Research Triangle Institute. Proceedings of the Na-
tional Forum on Contaminants in Fish, May 6 and 9, 2001,
August 2001.
Salanon, et al. 1995. Intake of Mercury From Fish, Lipid Perox-
idation, and the Risk of Myocardial Infarction and Coronary,
Cardiovascular, and Any Death in Eastern Finnish Men, Cir-
culation, 91: 645-655, 1995.
Schoeny, R. 2001. Methyl-mercury: EPA RfD — Issues and
Use, Proceedings of the National Forum on Contaminants in
Fish, May 6 and 9,2001, August 2001.
UNEP 2002. United Nations Environment Programme. Global
Mercury Assessment, December 2002.
U.S. EPA 1993. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Refer-
ence Dose (RfD): Description and Use in Health Risk As-
sessments (Background Document 1A), March 15, 1993.
U.S. EPA 1995. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. AP-
42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Chapter 11.10: Mineral Prod-
ucts Industry, Coal Cleaning, November 1995.
U.S. EPA 1997a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mer-
cury—Emergency Spill & Release Facts, March 1997.
U.S. EPA 1997b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mer-
cury in the Environment: Do You Work With Any Of These
Items That May Contain Mercury? March 1997.
U.S. EPA 1997c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mer-
cury Study Report to Congress, December 1997.
U.S. EPA 2002a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Es-
timated Per Capita Fish Consumption in the United States,
August 2002.
U.S. EPA 2002b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
2001 National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories, May
2002.
U.S. EPA 2002c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Clear
Skies Initiative web site, www.epa.gov/air/clearskies/.
U.S. EPA 2002d. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Of-
fice of Emergency and Remedial Response, Task Force on
Ritualistic Uses of Mercury Report, EPA/540-R-01-005, De-
cember 2002.
U.S. EPA 2003a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. IRIS
Summary: Methyl-mercury (MeHg) (CASRN 22967-92-6).
U.S. EPA 2003b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. IRIS
Summary: Elemental Mercury (CASRN 7439-97-6).
U.S. EPA 2003c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. IRIS
Summary: Mercuric Chloride (HgC12) (CASRN 7487-94-
7).
U.S. EPA 2003d. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mer-
cury Compounds. Technology Transfer Network, Air Toxics
web site.
U.S. EPA 2004a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Eval-
uation of Mercury Risk Communication Messages, August
2004.
U.S. EPA 2004b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Fact
Sheet: National Listing of Fish Advisories, August 2004.
U.S. EPA undated. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Trends in U.S. Mercury Emissions.
U.S. EPA and Environment Canada 2002. 2002 Great Lakes
Binational Toxics Strategy Annual Progress Report.
U.S. EPA, Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) and Soci-
ety for Risk Analysis (SRI) 2001. National Risk Communi-
cations Conference, May 6-8,2001, Proceedings Document,
August 2001.
USGS 1998. U.S. Geological Survey. Estimated Use of Water
in the United States in 1995.
Wisconsin 2003. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Mercury Rule web site, http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/
cea/mercury/.
34
-------
Appendix A:
Mercury in Fish
Conversion to methyl-mercury is the primary step in the intro-
duction of mercury to the food chain. It occurs readily in both
the water column and sediment. Fish absorb methyl-mercury
from the water through their gills, and through consumption of
aquatic organisms. Methyl-mercury then binds to the proteins
in fish tissue. Most fish have concentrations of mercury be-
tween 0.01 and 0.50 parts per million (ppm). However, mercury
increases in concentration as it moves up the food chain (also
known as biomagnification). Therefore, larger predatory fish,
such as shark, swordfish, certain species of tuna, pike, and wall-
eye frequently have higher concentrations of mercury in their
tissue (FDA 1994). Older fish also tend to have built up higher
concentrations of mercury (NRC 2001) through the process of
bioaccumulation. Bioaccumulation is defined as an increase in
the concentration of a chemical in an organism over time, when
compared to the chemical's concentration in the surrounding
environment. This occurs when the chemical is taken up and
stored faster than it is broken down or excreted (EXTOXNET
1993).
35
-------
Appendix B:
Mercury in Motion
A. Transport and Transformation
Mercury is released to the atmosphere as elemental mercury
and oxidized mercury. Elemental mercury has an average resi-
dence time in the atmosphere of one year, and can therefore
be carried greater distances. Oxidized mercury generally has a
residence time of hours to months and is deposited more locally
or regionally. Elemental mercury can be transformed to oxi-
dized mercury in cloud water, and is then subject to deposition
to surface waters and land cover (U.S. EPA 1997c).
B. Deposition
Deposition of mercury from the atmosphere occurs as dry depo-
sition and wet deposition. Dry deposition is the result of gravity
on particulate or gaseous mercury oxides. Wet deposition oc-
curs in precipitation as the result of the interaction of mercury
and cloud water. Deposition onto soils results in a bonding of
mercury to soil particles. Some mercury may be carried away in
runoff or soil leachate. Mercury can enter water bodies through
runoff or leachate from soil, and from direct deposition. Once
in the water, mercury can remain in the water, settle into sedi-
ment, be taken up by aquatic biota, or revolatilize into the at-
mosphere. Revolatilization of mercury from the oceans is the
primary source of re-emitted mercury (U.S. EPA 1997c).
36
-------
Appendix C:
EPA's Reference Dose for Methyl-mercury
The BMD is a statistical lower confidence limit on the dose that
produces a predetermined change in response rate of an adverse
effect compared to background. The BMD was used rather than
a no-observed-adverse-effect level/lowest observed-adverse-
effect level (NOAEL/LOAEL) approach to analyze the neuro-
logical effects in children and the dose-effect relationship in the
developmental studies used to derive the RfD. The current RfD
was derived based on data from two longitudinal, developmen-
tal studies conducted in the Faroe Islands and New Zealand.
The Faroe Islands study involved approximately 900 mother-
child pairs. Maternal cord-blood mercury levels were measured
during pregnancy. At 7 years of age, the children were then
tested on a variety of tasks. The New Zealand study measured
maternal hair mercury levels during pregnancy. The children
of 38 women with mercury levels greater than 6 ppm during
pregnancy were compared with the children of 199 mothers
with lower hair mercury levels. At 6 years of age, the children
were assessed on a number of standard neuropsychological
endpoints. Both studies found developmental delays in children
exposed in utero to methyl-mercury. Due to the larger sample
size, emphasis was placed on the Faroe Islands study (U.S. EPA
2003a). The RfD is used for criterion development, EPA regu-
latory and risk management activities, and as the basis for fish
consumption advisories (FCA) (Schoeny 2001). EPA used the
K power model, considering the constraint K>1, for the BMD
analysis, and the RfD for methyl-mercury is based on the neu-
rotoxicological effects of methyl-mercury exposure (U.S. EPA
2003a).
The RfC for ionic mercury (elemental mercury) is 0.0003 mg/
m3. The RfC is analogous to the RfD and is based on the as-
sumption that a threshold exists for toxic effects via inhalation
(U.S. EPA 2003b). The RfD for mercuric chloride is 0.0003
mg/kg-day (U.S. EPA 2003c).
37
-------
Appendix D:
Statewide Public Advisories
There were approximately 79,119 lakes (11,277,276 lake acres)
and 485,205 river miles under fish advisory in 2001. Maryland,
Missouri, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania each issued state-
wide advisories in 2001 for all lakes and rivers. Also in 2001,
Alaska issued statewide "No Restriction" advice to inform the
public that all Alaskan fish are safe to eat. Approximately 70
percent of the coastline of the lower 48 states are under an advi-
sory, including 92 percent of the Atlantic Coast, 100 percent of
the Gulf Coast, and several areas along the Pacific Coast (U.S.
Table D-1. Summary of 2001 Statewide Advisories by Waterbody Type
EPA 2002b). Figure D-1 highlights the states and percentage of
lake acres/river miles in each state currently under advisory.
Several other states publish advisories for specific waterbodies
only, rather than statewide advisories. A detailed explanation
can be found in the U.S. EPA Office of Water, Fact Sheet - Up-
date: National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories, EPA-
823-F-02-007, May 2002 (U.S. EPA 2002b).
State
Alaska^
Alabama
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Vermont
Wisconsin
Waterbody Type
Lake
N/A
Mercury
RGBs
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
RGBs; Chlordane; Mirex; DDT
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
River
N/A
Mercury
RGBs
Mercury; RGBs
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
RGBs; Chlordane; Mirex; DDT
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Coastal Waters
Mercury
RGBs
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Dioxins; Mercury; RGBs
RGBs
Mercury
RGBs
RGBs; Cadmium; Dioxins
Cadmium; Dioxins
Mercury
RGBs
Mercury
Mercury
Reference: U.S. EPA 2002b
^Alaska's statewide advice places no restrictions on consumption of fish or wildlife.
38
-------
Total Number of Fish Consumption Advisories - 2003
NH = 9
MA =122
Note: A statewide
advisory is issued to
warn the public of the
potential for wide-
spread contamination
of specific species in
certain types of water-
bodies. State advisory
data should not be
used for characterizing
geographic distribution
of chemical contami-
nants or for making
interstate comparisons.
D Advisories exist for specific waterbodies only
E3 Statewide lakes only advisory included in count
H Statewide rivers only advisory included in count
S Statewide rivers and lakes advisory included in count
• Statewide coastal advisory included in count
D Statewide advisory for marine fish included in count
D No advisories for chemical contaminants
AS = 1 D VI = 0 D
GU = 0 D PR = 0 D
2003 Total = 3,089
Figure D-1. Total Number of Fish Consumption Advisories for 2003.
Reference: U.S. EPA 2004b.
39
-------
Appendix E:
Blood and Hair Mercury Concentrations by Age and Gender
Table E-1. Selected Percentiles and Geometric Means of Blood and Hair Mercury (Hg) Concentrations for Children Aged 1-5 Years and Women
Aged 16-49 Years - NHANES, United States, 1999
Geometric
No.
Mean
(95% CL)
Selected percentiles (95% CL*)
10th
25th
50th
75th
90th
Blood Hg (parts per billion)
Children
Women
248
679
0.3
1.2
(0.2-0.4)
(0.9-1.6)
-------
Appendix F:
Mercury Levels in Fish and Shellfish
The following tables provide the mean and range of mercury levels in a variety of fish and shellfish.
Table F-1. Fish with Highest Mercury Levels
Species
Tilefish
*Swordfish
King Mackerel
•Shark
Mean (ppm)
1.45
1.00
0.73
0.96
Range (ppm)
0.65-3.73
0.10-3.22
0.30-1.67
0.05-4.54
No. of Samples
60
598
213
324
Reference: FDA 2001 b.
*Fish and shellfish among the most consumed of the domestic seafood market.
ND, non-detectable
Table F-2. Fish and Shellfish with Much Lower Mercury Levels
Species
Grouper (Mycteroperca)
Tuna (fresh or frozen)
'Lobster Northern (American)
Grouper (Epinephelus)
•Halibut
*Sablefish
•Pollock
Tuna (canned)
*Crab Blue
*Crab Dungeness
*Crab Tanner
*Crab King
'Scallop
•Catfish
'Salmon (fresh, frozen or canned)
'Oysters
'Shrimps
Mean (ppm)
0.43
0.32
0.31
0.27
0.23
0.22
0.20
0.17
0.17
0.18
0.15
0.09
0.05
0.07
ND
ND
ND
Range (ppm)
0.05-1.35
ND-1.30
0.05-1.31
0.19-0.33
0.02-0.63
ND-0.70
ND-0.78
ND-0.75
0.02-0.50
0.02-0.48
ND-0.38
0.02-0.24
ND-0.22
ND-0.31
ND-0.18
ND-0.25
ND
No. of Samples
64
191
88
48
29
102
107
248
94
50
55
29
66
22
52
33
22
Reference: FDA 2001 b.
*Fish and shellfish among the most consumed of the domestic seafood market.
ND, non-detectable
41
-------
Table F-3. Fish with Methyl-mercury Levels Based on Limited Sampling
Species
*Red Snapper
Marlin
Moonfish
Orange Roughy
Bass Saltwater
Trout Freshwater
Bluefish
Croaker
Trout Seawater
*Cod (Atlantic)
Mahi Mahi
"Ocean Perch
Haddock (Atlantic)
Whitefish
Herring
*Spiny Lobster
Perch Freshwater
Perch Saltwater
Flounder/Sole
"Clams
Tilapia
Mean (ppm)
0.60
0.47
0.60
0.58
0.49
0.42
0.30
0.28
0.27
0.19
0.19
0.18
0.17
0.16
0.15
0.13
0.11
0.10
0.04
ND
ND
Range (ppm)
0.07-1.46
0.25-0.92
0.60
0.42-0.76
0.10-0.91
1.22 (max)
0.20-0.40
0.18-0.41
ND-1.19
ND-0.33
0.12-0.25
ND-0.31
0.07-0.37
ND-0.31
0.016-0.28
ND-0.27
0.10-0.31
0.10-0.15
ND-0.18
ND
ND
No. of Samples
10
13
1
9
9
NA
2
15
4
11
15
10
10
2
8
8
4
6
17
6
8
Reference: FDA 2001 b.
*Fish and shellfish among the most consumed of the domestic seafood market.
ND, non-detectable
42
-------
Appendix G:
Mercury Contamination of Aquatic Ecosystems
Table G-1. Fish Samples from USGS Study with Mercury Concentrations Greater than 0.5 ug/g wet wt.
Study Unit
NVBR
SACR
SOFL
SANT
SACR
SACR
LINJ
ACAD
ACAD
YELL
YELL
YELL
YELL
SACR
MOBL
LINJ
SANT
MOBL
LINJ
SANT
SANT
SOFL
SACR
MIAM
Site Location
Lahontan Reservoir, NV
Sacramento SI. nr. Knights Landing, CA
Water Conservation District 3A15, FL
N. Fork Edisto R.nr Fairview Crossrd, SC
Bear River @ Hwy 70, CA
Bear River @ Hwy 70, CA
Great Egg Harbor @ Sicklerville, NJ
Bogue Falaya R. @ Covington, LA
Tangipahoa R. @ Robert, LA
Shoshone River, @ mouth nr. Kane, WY
Bighorn Lake @ Hwy14A, WY
Bighorn River nr. Kane, WY
Shoshone River @ mouth nr. Kane, WY
Sacramento SI. nr. Knights Landing, CA
Satilpa Creek nr. Coffeeville, AL
Great Egg Harbor @ Sicklerville, NJ
N. Fork Edisto River nr. Branchville, SC
Satilpa Creek nr. Coffeeville, AL
Great Egg Harbor @ Sicklerville, NJ
S. Fork Edisto River @ Springfield, SC
S. Fork Edisto River nr. Canaan, SC
Water Conservation District U3
Bear River @ Hwy 70, CA
E. Fork L. Miami R. nr Wmsburg, OH
Species
White Bass
Largemouth Bass
Largemouth Bass
Largemouth Bass
Largemouth Bass
Smallmouth Bass
Chain Pickerel :H
Largemouth Bass
Largemouth Bass
Walleye
Walleye
Walleye
Walleye
Largemouth Bass
Spotted Bass
Largemouth Bass
Largemouth Bass
Largemouth Bass
Chain Pickerel
Largemouth Bass
Largemouth Bass
Largemouth Bass
Smallmouth Bass
Smallmouth Bass
Sample type
(# of indiv.)
Compos. (8)
Individ. (1)
Compos. (3)
Individ. (1)
Individ. (1)
Individ. (1)
Compos. (2)
Compos. (8)
Compos. (8)
Compos. (5)
Compos. (5)
Compos. (5)
Individ. (1)
Individ. (1)
Compos. (2)
Individ. (1)
Individ. (1)
Individ. (1)
Compos. (5)
Individ. (1)
Individ. (1)
Compos. (3)
Individ. (1)
Individ. (1)
Mean wt. (g)
694
1471
788
907
518
467
172
-
-
817
896
452
1444
1156
140
49
-
92
84
-
-
254
150
608
Mean Hg
3.36
2.17
2.15
1.82
1.21
1.10
0.91
0.83
0.77
0.70
0.68
0.66
0.66
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.63
0.62
0.59
0.58
0.55
0.55
0.54
0.51
Advisory8
Yes
No"
Yes
Yes
No"
No"
Yesc
Yesd
Yesd
Yes
Yes8
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No"
No
'Reference: U.S. EPA 1998
b Advisory by state of California pending (April 1999)
c Statewide advisory for bass and pickerel in New Jersey
d Statewide monitoring program for Hg in fish in progress.
" Advisory in effect for state of Montana but not Wyoming (April 1999)
—, No data
43
-------
Appendix H:
MDH Outreach Materials
44
-------
45
-------
46
-------
E = l-fa^-fUs
' S § 2 « ° *£ -l'£
!,s2-gg!sgg*l
• «, *S •" r ra 's .= *- —
t * ai'^S^S^S1*
l~^ ^v? ^ iU ta C
S
-------
For More Information
Call or visit us on the Web:
esota Department of Health
ww w.heai t h. s t ate jn n. u s / di v s / eh / f i sh / ind e x.htm I
651/201-4911
I -800-657-3908
TDD: 651/201-5797
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
www.dnr. state, mn.u s
651/296-6157
1-800-MINNDNR
TTY: 651/296-5484 or 1-800-657-3929
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
www.pca.state.mn.us (search lor mercury or PCBs)
651/296-6300
1-800-657-3864
Minnesota Department of Health
121 East Seventh Place, Suite 220
P.O. Box 64975
St. Paul, MM 55164-0975
To request this document in another format, such as large print, Braille or
cassette tape, call 651/201-4911 TDD 651/201-3797 or toll-free through
the MM Relay Service, 1-800-627-3529.
Printed on recycled paper
Caver: Original batik by Sue Duda, Minocqua, Wisconsin
ic in voare
March 2006
48
-------
An Expectant
Mother's Guide
to Eating
Minnesota Fish
what you should know
if you are pregnant
planning to be pregnant
or breastfeeding
49
-------
Fish are an excellent low-fat
food. Eat a variety of fish
as part of your balanced
food choices.
There are many reasons to enjoy a
variety of fish often:
• Fish are a great source? of protein,
vitamins and minerals
le oils found in fish are important
for unborn and breast-fed babies
Raring fish may play a role in the
prevention of heart disease in adults
However, fish may contain
contaminants that could harm
you or your family
if you eat certain
types of fish or
eat fish too often.
If you are pregnant, planning to
be pregnant, breastfeeding or
have young children, read on to
learn how to include fish as part
of healthy, balanced food choices.
This brochure will help you to;
• decide which fish to eat
* determine how often to eat fish
• identify fish high in contaminants
• large walleyes, northern
pike, or bass?
• canned "white" tuna,
fresh tuna or halibut
more than twice a month?
• sword fIs h o r shark?
If so, you may need to change
the kinds 0f fisft you eat or
flow often you eat fish.
Your body can handle some
exposure to contaminants.
However, a developing child
or unborn baby can handle
less than an adult. If you are
pregnant, planning to be
pregnant or breastfeeding,
you need to be mare careful.
Should 1 just stop eating fish?
NO...
just be sure to follow
the guidelines in
this brochure
This brochure was produced as a collaborative effort
between the Minnesota Department or Health and
dietitians from HeallriPafln&rs. Inc.
50
-------
What kinds and how much fish should f eat?
The following guidelines are for women of child-bearing age
and children under 15 years of age.
Follow these guidelines when eating fish:
For fish caught in Minnesota lakes and rivers:
Amount of each type of fish caught in Minnesota
* Panfish (sunfish
& crappie)
* Perch
» Bullheads
4
I meal a week
» Walleyes shorter
than 20 in.
* Northern pike
shorter than 30 in.
• All sizes of
other species
*
1 meal a month
• Walleyes longer
tfan 20 in.
• Northern pike
longer than 30 in.
• Muskellunge
4
Do not eat.
For Commercial fiSh {bought in a store or eaten in a restaurant):
These fish are more
likely to contain
higher amounts of
contaminants:
• larger fish
• older fish
- fish that feed on
other fish (walleyes,
northern pike, bass)
- fatty fish
Amount of each type of fish
* Salmon • Catfish • Shrimp
* Cod * Tilapia • Crab
• Pollock • Herring • Scallops
» Canned "light" • Sardines • Oysters
Luna |6oz.|
2 meals a week
• Canned "white"
tuna \6 oz.)
• Tuna steak
• Halibut
• LobsLer
2 meals a month
• Shark
• Sword fish
• Tile fish
• King mackerel
Do not eat.
Include ail sources of fish you eat when making choices,
For example: If you eat one 6 oz. can of white (albacore) tuna, then wait two weeks
before eating another meal of any type of fish. Or, if you eat one meal from an IB-inch
walleye, do not eat my other meats of fish for one month
More information
These are general guidelines based on mercury
levels measured in fish throughout Minnesota
and levels of mercury found in commercial fish.
Specific meal advice is available tor eating fish
from lakes and rivers that have been tested.
For information on consumption
guidelines for commercial fish
and for fish from specific
Minnesota lakes and rivers,
call 651/215-0950 or 1-800-657-3908
or visit our Web site at
www. hea I th ,sta te. mn. u s
51
-------
How can contaminants in fish be harmful?
Fish advisories in Minnesota are based on levels
of mercury and PCBs in the fish.
Mercury
Small amounts of mercury can
damage a brain that is just starting
to form or grow. That's why young
children, unborn and breast-fed
babies are at mosi risk. Too
much mercury may affect a child's
behavior and lead to learning
problems later in life.
Mercury can also harm older
children and adults, but it takes
larger amounts. It may cause ting!ing,
prickling or numbness in hands and
feet or changes In vision.
PCBs
Babies who are
exposed to PCBs during
pregnancy may have lower birth weight,
reduced head size and delayed physical
development. Exposure to PCBs may
also cause cancer.
By following the guidelines In this
brochure, you can reduce your
exposure to the contaminants in fish
and help reduce your health risks,
Methods for cleaning and cooking fish:
Mercury cannot be removed through cooking or cleaning.
However, by removing fat when you clean and cook fish, you can
help to reduce the amount of other contaminants like PCBs.
Remove skin
Cut away the tat
a lung the back
Cut away the fatty area
along the side of tiie fisli
Trim off the belly fat
Diagram from Wisconsin Fish Advisory
52
-------
Where do the contaminants
in fish come from?
in Minnesota's lakes and
rivers comes from air pollution. About
70 percent of the mercury in the air
is the result of emissions from coal
combustion, mining, incineration of
mercury-eon laming products and
other human sources. All fish have
some mercury, including;
• fish caught in Minnesota lakes
and rivers
• tish caught in waters in other states
» fish you buy in the store or eat in
a restaurant
• fish from lakes in remote areas
of northern Minnesota
PCBS are man-made substances
that were once used in electrical
transformers, carbonless papers.
cutting oils and hydraulic fluids. PCBs
were banned in 1976. Although levels
have declined. PCBs are still found
in the environment. They are found
mainly in the Great Lakes and major
rivers such as the Mississippi River
Minnesota Department of Health
121 East Seventh Place, Suite 220
P.O. Box 64975
St. Paul, MN 55164-0975
651,215-0950 1 -300-657-39 OS
To request this document in another
format, such as large print, Braille or
cassette tape, call 651 215-0700; TDD
651/215-0707 or toll-tree through the MN
Relay Service, 1-800-627-3529 — ask for
651/215-0700.
Printed on recycled paper
tC*141-0709
May 2004
53
-------
Guia sobre
el consume
de pescado
en Minnesota,
para mujeres
embarazadas
Lo que debe saber
si esta embarazada, tiene
pensado embarazarse
o amamanta
MDH
[DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHI
(Secretaria de Salud Publics de Minnesota)
54
-------
El pescado es un excelente
alimento bajo en grasas. Coma
una variedad de pescado como
parte de su dieta bafanceada.
Exfsten muchas razones por las que debe
disFrutar de una variedad de pescado
a menudo:
• El pescado es una excelente fuente de
protefna, vitaminas y mlnerales.
* Los aceites que el pescado contiene son
importances para los bebes en el seno
matemo y los bebes amamantados.
* til consume de pescado puede de&empefiar
una funcidm importante en la prevenci6n de
enfermedades del corazon en ad u I los.
Sin embargo, el pescado puede contener
contaminantes que pueden ser
daninos para usted
y su familia, si
come dertos tipos
o los come con
mudia frecuencia.
iUsted come
SI esta embarazada, tiene pensado
embarazarse, amamanta o tiene
nirios pequenos. lea esta
information para aprender como
inctuir el pescado como parte de
Una dieta saludable y baianceada.
Este foil etc puedeayudarlea:
determinar la fmuencia con que puede
comer pescado
identifier bs tipos de pescado con alto
contenido de contaminantes
walleye (ojizarco), northern
pike i lucio del norte* o ba&s
[robalol grandes?
• pescado mas de una vez a la
semarta durante todo el ano?
mas de seis onias de atun
enlatddo a la semana?
* pez espada o tiburon?
Si res pond i 6 afirmativamente.
quiids deba cambiar IDS l/pas tU>
ftestado quecomeola fmufntia
con que IDS come,
Su cuerpo puede tolerar una leve
exposicion a contamtnantes. Sin
embargo. IDS nirios en desarrollo
o los bebes que aun se
ertcueniran en el seno materno
toleran menos que un aduito. Si
esta embarazada, tiene pensado
embara^arse o amamanta, debe
tener mas cuidado.
iSera mejor que deje de
comer pescado?
NO ...
simplemente
asegurese de
seguir las
directrices do
este rdleto.
Esle feiieto lus prcducldo bajo l
cfe la Secwtarfa de Salod POWica cfe Minnesota y los
en dieletica de Health Partners, Inc.
55
-------
iQue tipos de pescado puedo consumir y en que cantidades?
Las siguientes directrices son para mujeres en edad de concebir y
nifios menores de 15 anas de edad.
*
Siga estas directrices cuando consuma pescado
SI el pescado proviene de lagos y rios de Minnesota:
Cantidad de cada tipo de pescado en Minnesota
• PanFish i,pei luna y
pomoeto)
• Perch (percal
• Bullheads fcabeza
de tore)
i
1 com Ida a la semana
• Walleyes fojizarcosj
de jiifptos de 20 pulg.
(50 cm)
• Norther pike [tuciode
norte} de merits de 30
pulg, |76cm|
• Todos los tamafflos de
otras esjpedes
1
1 comida al rnes
» Walleyes (ojizarcos)
de mas de 20 pulg.
(50 cm)
» Norther pike (lucio
del norte) de m(fs de
30 pulg (76 cm)
• Muskel lunge (lucio
rayado]
No los coma.
Para el pescado COmerdal lobtenWoeDiBBtJendaoconsumldo
en un restaunnte):
Estos peces
tienen mas
probabilidades
de center) er mayo res
cantidades
de contaminantes:
* peces mas grandes
- peces ma's viejos
• peces que se alimentan
de otros peces. p. ej.
walleye (ojizarco).
northern pike Oucio del
nortc), bass (rcibaio)
• pescados grasos
Cantidad de cada tipo de pescad
• Salmon * Catfish \ bagrel • Gambas
* Cod (bacalao) * Tilapia * Csneneia
• Pollock (gado) • Herring larenque) • Scallops
(irieiras)
• Atiin "ligero" • Sardinas • Ostras
2 comida s a la semana
Atun "bianco"
enlatado (602.)
Filete de atijn
Halibut (hipogloso)
Langosta
2 comidas al mes
* Tibur6n
* Swordfish
(pez espadal
* Tile fish (tofoliitilo)
* King mackeral
(caballareina}
IVo los coma.
Incluya todos los tipos de pescado que come cuando haga sus elecciones.
POT ejempb: Si come un lata de 6 oz. de atiin bianco (albacora I. espere dos semanas
antes de prepararotra comida con fuatyuitr Eipo de pescado. O. si prepare una comida
ton un walleye (ujizarco) de IS pulgadas, TO coma mdipncadfi duranl? un mes.
Mcis informaddn
Estas son directrices generates basadas en los niveles
de mercurio que los peces de Minnesota contienen y
los niveles c(e mercuric que los peces comerciales
rontienen. Hay recomendaciones especfficas para el
consumo de pescado de los lagos y rfos que han sido
analizados. Tainbl^n existen recomendaciones para
persorvas que sofamenie comer pescado durante sus
vacaciones oen una sola Lemporada del a ho.
Para obtener mas Informed on sob re las
pautas de consume de pescado
cotnerdal o de pescado precedent* de
de term in ad os lagos o ri'os de Minnesota,
llameal 651/2 J 5-0950 oa3
I-8OO-657- WOS o vi site nuestro sitio
web en www health stale.mn.us
56
-------
2C6mo pueden hacernos da no los contaminantes que el
pescado contiene?
Los informes consuJtivos de Minnesota sobre el consumo de
pescado se basari en los niveies de mercurto y de bifenilos
poMclorados (PCB) en el pescado.
Mercurio
El mercuric en cantidades pequefias puede
danar el cerebro que apenas se comienza a
desarrollar Poreso tos niftos pequenos, los
bebes a tin en el seno materno y los
amamantados corren el mayor riesgo. El
exceso de mercuric puede sfectar el
com ports miento de su nirio y causar
problemasdel aprendizaje posteriormente.
El mercurio tambten puede serdafiino
para ninos mds grandes y ad u I tos, pero se
requieren cantidades mayores. Puede
causar una sensaci6n de cosquilleo. picor,
o entumecimiento en las manos y los pSes.
o cambios en Ea vista
PCBs
Los bebes expuestos
a PCB durante el embaraio
suelen pesar menos al nacer, lener la
cabeza m^s pequena y ret rasa rse en su
desarrollo ffslco. La exposid6n a PCB
lambi^n puede causar cdncer.
Si sigue tas directrices recomendadas en
ebite folleto puede reducir su exposicldn
a los quimlcos que se encuentran en el
pescado y ayudar a reducir tos riesgos
para su salud.
Metodos para limpiar y cocinar pescado:
Cocinar y limpiar el pescado no elimlna el mercurio. Sin embargo,
si eliminH la ^rasa cuando Mmpia y cocina el pescado, pufde ayudar a
reducir la cantidad de contaminantes, tales como los PCBs
Diagrama oblenidode! Informe corsjltivo del pescadode Wisconsin
57
-------
iDe donde provienen los
contaminantes del pescado?
El metCUfiO de los lagos y rios dc
Minnesota procedede la eontaminaciGn del
aire. Cerca del 70 por cientn del mercurio
que hay en el aire precede de emisiones por
ly combustion y extraction de carbon, la
combustion de produetos que contienen
mercuric y otras fuentes causadas por el
hombre. Todos los peces lienen algode
mercurso. incluidos los siguienles:
» los pescados en los lagos y n'os de
Minnesota.
* los pescados en las aguas de
otros estados
* el pescado comprado en lien das o
consumido en restaurantes
» el pescado de Jos lagos de lugares
remotosdel nortede Minnesota
PCBS. Estas son sustarvcias elaboradas
por el ser humano. las cuales se uliliiaban
en transformadores elMricos, papel
autocopiante. aceite de corte y Ifquidos
hidraulicos. El uso de los PCS estS
prohibidodesde 1976. Aunquelos niveles
ban disminuido. adn existen PCBs en el
ambiente. Se encuentran principalmente
en los Grandes Lagos y en n'os de gran
caudal, como el Mississippi.
Minnesota Department of Health
(Sec re tar i a de Salud Publica de Minnesota)
121 East Seventh Place, Suite 220
P.O. Box 64975
St. Paul, MN 55164-0975
651/215-0950 1-800-657-3908
Para solieitar este documento en otro formato,
por ejemplo con letras grandes. en Braille o en
casete, llame al 651 .'215-0700; TDD 651215-
0.707 o gratis a (raves del MN Relay Service
(servicio de transferencia de llamadas),
1-600-627-3529; pida que le comuniquen al 651;
215-0700,
Imprest? en paper reciclado
1C #141-0059
Mayo de 2004
58
-------
MDH
March 2006
Fish Consumption Advisory Materials
Please indicate the number of copies you want next to the items listed, below.
Brochures
Eat Fish Often?
A Minnesota Guide
to Eating Fish Our
new annual advisory
brochure. Contains
health-based advice
on eating fish from
lakes and rivers in
Minnesota. March
2006 (IC# 141-0378)
An Expectant Mother's
Guide to Eating Minnesota
Fish Whatyou should know
if you are pregnant, planning
a pregnancy, or nursing a
baby. For use in clinical or
childbirth education, and by
consumers. March 2006.
(IC# 141-0709)
Spanish Version of An
Expectant Mother's Guide
to Eating Minnesota Fish
March 2006 (IC#141-0059)
• .-•.'••
Cl t-(4t*MITi
Magnet
2x4 magnet. "Eat smaller fish, they taste
better and have fewer pollutants" (ic# 399-0406)
Limit of 300 per organization
Please print or type the street address for delivery of your order.
Name
Organization
Street Address_
City
State
Zipcode
Telephone #
Fax this form to MDH at (651) 201-4606; or mail it to us at:
Fish Consumption Advisory
Minnesota Department of Health
P.O. Box 64975
St. Paul, MN 55164-0975
Questions?
Contact the Minnesota Fish Consumption Advisory program at (651) 201-4911, or, in Greater Minnesota, 1-800/657-3908,
and press 1. To request this document in another format, call (651) 201-5000, TDD (651) 201-5797. Permission is given to
photocopy the materials listed on this form.
59
-------
Appendix I:
NYSDOH Outreach Materials
Eating Sport Fish
2005-2006 Health Advice for
the Capital District, Hudson River,
New York Harbor, Fresh Waters of Long Island and
Marine Waters of New York
Fishing New York's abundant waters is a popular sport. Anglers catch a wide variety of delicious fish and
many eat the fish they catch. However, some species in certain waters contain chemicals that may be harmful to
health, even when the fish look healthy and the water looks clean. What should you consider when deciding
whether or not to eat the fish you catch? The New York State Department of Health issues health advisories for
people who eat fish from waters where chemical contaminants may be a problem. You can make an informed
decision about the potential risks from eating contaminated sport fish by using this publication. More detailed
advice can be found in the New York State Fishing Regulations Guide (available where fishing licenses are sold)
or in a booklet which can be requested from the Department of Health at 1-800-458-1158, ext. 27815.
Why Is This Advice Important to Me?
Chemicals are found in some fish at levels that may be
harmful to your health. Some chemicals build up in your
body over time or effect organs, such as your kidneys or
liver.
Women of childbearing age may be at special risk
from eating contaminated fish. During pregnancy and
when breast-feeding, some chemicals (such as PCBs,
dioxins and mercury) may be passed on to your baby. This
can harm the baby's growth and development. Children
under the age of 15 should not eat contaminated fish
because they are still growing and developing, and are at
special risk from contaminants.
How Much Fish Can I Eat?
Generally, no one should eat no more than one meal of
fish per week from any of the state's fresh waters. Some
waters in New York have even stricter health advisories.
The following guidelines are a shortened version of
the complete health advisories for the Capital District,
Hudson River, New York Harbor, the fresh waters of Long
Island and marine waters of New York State. For more
detailed advice about eating fish, please consult Health
Advisories: Chemicals in Sport Fish and Game available
from the Health Department by calling 1-800-458-1158,
ext. 27815.
Which Fish are Safer (Less Contaminated) to Eat?
You can limit your exposure to chemical contaminants
in these ways:
• Choose fish not mentioned in the advisories—those fish
generally have lower contaminant levels.
• Choose smaller fish (of legal size) to eat. Smaller fish
are younger and generally have lower contaminant
levels than larger, older fish.
• Fish from Long Island South Shore waters and eastern
Long Island Sound waters generally have lower
contaminant levels than fish from the Hudson River
and the Upper Bay of New York Harbor.
• See other side for more restrictive health advisories.
Can I Clean and Cook My Fish to Reduce
Contaminants?
You can reduce your exposure to chemical
contaminants by the way you prepare the fish. Many
chemicals concentrate in the fatty parts of fish. By
cleaning or cooking fish to reduce fat, you can also reduce
the amount of contaminants you eat.
• Remove the skin and trim all fat from the areas shown
below.
• Don't pan-fry or deep-fry. Broil, bake, poach or boil
your fish so the fatty juices drip away.
• Don't consume cooking liquids.
an tat along
Catch and Release
Anglers who want to continue to enjoy the fun of
fishing, but who also wish to lessen the potential risks
associated with eating contaminated sport fish, should
consider catch and release. Catch and release also
minimizes your impact on local fisheries. When practicing
catch and release, follow these simple guidelines:
• Release fish quickly—while still in the water, if
possible; have necessary tools (needlenose pliers)
close at hand.
• When a fish is deeply hooked, do not tear out the
hook--cut the leader or the hook to give the fish a
nearly fourfold increase in chances of survival.
• Avoid playing fish to exhaustion, particularly if water
temperatures are very high.
For more detailed information about catch and release,
consult the New York State Fishing Regulations Guide
available wherever fishing licenses are sold.
Prepared by:
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
and the New York State Department of Health
60
-------
Hudson River between Bakers Falls (in Hudson
Falls) and the Federal Dam at Troy:
• Catch and release fishing only—these regulations apply to
the portion of the Hudson River noted above and all
tributaries upstream to the first barrier impassable by fish.
All fish caught must be immediately returned to the water
unharmed.
* General Health Advisory*
For the waters listed below, the general health advice
recommendation is:
Women of childbearing age and children under 15 should
EAT NO FISH from the waters listed below.
Other people should follow the recommendations
provided for each water listed below and should eat no
more than one meal per week of any fish species not
listed.
Hoosic River
• Eat no more than one meal per month of brown trout over 14
inches long.
Kinderhook Lake
• Eat no more than one meal per month of American eel.
Nassau Lake
Eat no fish.
Valatie Kill between County Route 18 and Nassau Lake
• Eat no fish.
Hudson River and All Tributaries to the First
Barrier Impassable by Fish:
Corinth Dam downstream to Dam at Route 9 Bridge in
South Glens Falls
• Eat no more than one meal per month of smallmouth bass
over 14 inches long.
Sherman Island Dam downstream to feeder dam at South
Glens Falls
• Eat no more than one meal per month of carp.
Dam at Route 9 Bridge in South Glens Falls to Federal Dam
at Troy
• Eat no fish.
Federal Dam at Troy south to bridge at Catskill
• Eat no fish except alewife, American shad, blueback
herring, rock bass and yellow perch.
• Eat no more than one meal per month of alewife, blueback
herring, rock bass and yellow perch.
• Eat no more than one meal per week of American shad
(general advisory)
Hudson River South of Catskill, Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull
and Upper Bay of New York Harbor (North of Verrazano
Narrows Bridge)
• Eat no gizzard shad.
• Eat no more than one meal per month of American eel,
Atlantic needlefish, bluefish, brown bullhead, carp, channel
catfish, goldfish, largemouth and smallmouth bass, rainbow
smelt, striped bass, walleye, white catfish and white perch
and eat no more than one meal per week of other fish
species.
• Eat no more than six blue crabs per week and don't consume
the hepatopancreas (mustard, tomalley, liver) or cooking
liquid.
Hudson River - Dobbs Ferry south to Greystone
• Eat no American eel
• Follow advisories for Hudson River south of Catskill for
other species.
Harlem River and East River (to the Throgs Neck Bridge)
• Eat no American eel
• Eat no more than one meal per month of Atlantic needlefish,
bluefish, striped bass and white perch.
Boyds Corner Reservoir (Putnam Co.)
• Eat no more than one meal per month of largemouth bass
over 16 inches and walleye.
Diverting, East Branch and West Branch Reservoirs
(Putnam Co.)
• Eat no more than one meal per month of walleye.
Bog Brook Reservoir (Putnam Co.)
• Eat no more than one meal per month of walleye over 21
inches
Amawalk and Cross River Reservoirs (Westchester Co.)
• Eat no more than one meal per month of largemouth and
smallmouth bass over 16 inches.
Sawmill River (Westchester Co.)
• Eat no more than one meal per month of American eel.
Sheldrake River (Westchester Co.)
• Eat no American eel
• Eat no more than one meal per month of goldfish.
Titicus Reservoir (Westchester Co.)
• Eat no more than one meal per month of white perch.
Inland Waters of Long Island
Freeport Reservoir and Grant Park Pond (Nassau Co.)
• Eat no more than one meal per month of carp.
Lake Capri (Suffolk Co.)
• Eat no more than one meal per month of American eel or
carp.
Hall's Pond (Nassau Co.) and Spring Pond Middle Island
(Suffolk Co.)
• Eat no carp or goldfish
Loft's and Whitney Park Ponds (Nassau Co.)
• Eat no more than one meal per month of carp or goldfish.
Ridder's Pond (Nassau Co.)
• Eat no goldfish.
St. James Pond (Suffolk Co.)
• Eat no more than one meal per month of all species.
Smith Pond at Roosevelt Park (Nassau Co.)
• Eat no American eel.
• Eat no more than one meal per month of carp and goldfish.
Smith Pond at Rockville Center and Upper Massapequa
Reservoir (Nassau Co.)
• Eat no more than one meal per month of white perch.
Upper Twin Pond (Nassau Co.)
Eat no more than one meal per month of American eel
Marine Waters:
Lower Bay of New York Harbor, Jamaica Bay, Long Island
Sound, Peconic and Gardiners bays, Block Island Sound and
Long Island South Shore Waters
• The general health advisory does not apply to these waters.
However, some species offish and shellfish do contain
chemical contaminants at levels that may cause adverse
human health effects. For those species, people should
follow the advice given below.
• Women of childbearing age and children under the age of 15
should eat no striped bass from New York Harbor and Long
Island Sound west of Wading River. Other people should
eat no more than one meal per month of striped bass from
these waters.
• Everyone should eat no more than one meal per week of
striped bass from Long Island Sound east of Wading River,
Peconic and Gardiners Bays, Block Island Sound, Long
Island South Shore waters and Jamaica Bay.
• Everyone should eat no more than one meal per week of
American eel and bluefish from any of these waters.
• Do not eat the hepatopancreas (mustard, tomalley, liver) of
American lobster and blue crab. Discard all cooking liquids.
This summary is only a quick reference. For more complete information, consult Health Advisories: Chemicals in Sport Fish and
Game published annually by the New York State Department of Health. This publication provides advisories on eating fish from all New
York waters, describes the contaminants and reasons for the advisories and tells how to space meals so exposure to chemicals is not
excessive. If you eat fish from other New York State waters, call the Department of Health toll-free at 1-800-458-1158, ext. 27815 for
a free copy of the advisory or to speak with someone about any questions you may have. The full advisories are also available on the
internet: http://www.nyhealth.gov/nysdoh/fish/fish.htm or can be requested by e-mail: BTSA@health.state.ny.us
61
-------
Consume de la Pesca Deport iva
Recumendactunes dv -Salud para 2002-200,1
para el Pfetrilw de la Capital el Rl« Hudson, tt Puerto de NUWH Yurk,
las Cuerpos de Agua Dulce d« Lung Island j1 fes Aguas Marinas de Nueva Yurk
En las agios jtwndands; de Nuc%a York, In peso dcpartrvn «* un deporte pcpulii. Los pcwudore* dc anzudo peecan un a gran
pcro* dcticivtfw >' n»Utfi« te riepw
potertcialetuilcoowmirbpesea4«p«liva«wwrt«Md«, InfawwHAim^dettllatbpvedeserhallatlawlMsiiiaNf*r>Wt JfaJirjFMt
inA- ••' Lit Ciiuu jJi- RfgiaMfniM tic Pt\ta del £*iatitrtic Nutvu Yuri {ptihttcadoen !n£l& y disptHiiblc dcmdc se wiufcn
Jailiocncias para la pesca) ofn un fottcto quc pucdc scrsaliritadoal DcpanamcnlE}dc SaJiid iEamando al I-8H3-45S-J J58, extension
27815.
;,P(ir qu* es Importanle esle cunseju pars mi?
Eh *\f anas prses se cncuaMTin produflns quimkos i m
IU\L-| IJLIL' pin-tli* Nj^f 4laAJnci piint MJ -..iluiJ A|]'IIIIIK quimk^
v.- acumulan en su eHSfpo a invfe dd liempo y/o afectan sus
iV^amn Iain ciHin) lin ri Aontn D d lilgado.
Las mujtrn que rstan en cdad dr prncrtar B^IK
puedcn tcncr un rirago especinl al OMTUT peseado
(HiiljinliniHlii. Ubraiilc fl q-iiilxirj/ti > gujndu JI]I;IIUJII[;L .il
bcW, algnnns qufniiecs I ial« ecuno la dkntlna, «l meroirifl y
kit. PC'B Lambien conocidc* como bifcna]« pd iclorinados o
BPC) puedni iti LrjiiHinilidoa al bebs, Eslo pnedf ptf judioir
el crecimienlo y el dcsairollo del mismo. l^ns ninv* mcnortK
dc IS unus dc cdid no dcbcn cofiicr pewodo eonlaminidu
|K(*|uc «|(IK hxlavfn se *sl jfi desarwllaitdii y tret JeH(*i y esjin
expiKxhK a un riesfti special a «nw«iaKia de Ifts
ccntaminantes.
iQw nuilidad de pesrodo pucdu tunwr?
t. nadk ilthe center ptscadi> de las aguas
duJcei del csiodc niitdt una VL-/ par scntana. Sin ombaijso,
alg jnas tslrnsiofics dc aguaen Nucva York liencn
rc-CDinendacianes de salud j.in m&s eslrictuk
La w jyieiMe in ftniiiieiH'ii es una ver>i^ti aorevjado 4e UK
renanemlacitiies. dc *JJvd pora cl Dimridnfc la Capital, d Ri'w
Hudson, el Puerto dc Nucva York, las eitension« dc agua
du9ec dc Long Island y las iguas marinas dc Nucva York.
PUTLI uhcner infunnatHSn mis Jrtalljda wbre el mnstiniu de
pewiUliit. faiw * tcmsufiar a IffaftA Aiiwairirf; i'firmirgli
in Span Fish ami CO/IK (Sfi'amfHctn'ionf.t tit Salatl.
Qitfaiiffti ftita Pfsca Ofpantra y la Cans), disponihfc pof
mediodel DcpirtameritQ de Salud llamando al I-8UO-4SK-
para earner?
Eligtendn •contn ftucs^of qitc no se ntcnclonen en hs
cenMjtK de salitd— te& pcscados no mencianados
generalnKnle licne menwev nivdcs dc conlaimnicitSfi.
Eligjcndo tofiief pescados pcqucnos tdc tamano legal).
Los pcc«s pcqsrenot sen mis jovenes > per to f sticral
comietKn mi'niK fiwtiiinin»iiV) quc Ids pe«s mis
ill ml Jus y r.i Ji VJCJCHi.
Los p«o Oc tw ffu-jx dc In f Ml b Sur de Ijm F Island y
de la Mna, CMC dd Esi rcchu de Lcmg Island
gencralmcnle licnc niveles de nmlaminanlcs mas bajoe
que !os pescados del Rio I ludscn y dc la Buhfj
Sup**!™1 del Pwenn Je fiowa Vi*k.
Vea al diirsopani recprtundaCMiles mis res(rin|aji lambien quieren disminuir d
l asociwlu end rf i medidas para mllar;
* UbETE d pen rJpidiunenDe, si w posible. cuandtt jun
eM^ M cl a^um Knja a mariLh Ijis hcitamiottaa
nwesarlsis (alicai*ilc nunis ilns).
• Si el pc/ csii bicn cnganehado at anzuclc, najale el
jny.ucla — cone la pane mas Tina del sedal odtl anzuela
pira dark al pez una opoDunided cuadruplc dc
sofcrevivir.
* Evile iugai son el p« linMu el pgnlo de agcHarlo.
espedalmertl* xj la Hjfitpt-falwra del aj.ua es* iiwy al«U
I'.ui ii i hi m. IL kin mit dcudlada. »clwe la nesea y Mielia,
rcnnihe a la gufa Wfn1 fort Sterf Fishing Kegnlaliims GnrVfr
c (» Cwlff dr fltfiamfnlas 4f ffst'a dtl Eilatie & Httfva
Yuri, i|HnNu;^li] cii liijiSps'l. dixJKmibk cit las Kfieiiuiimkl
Depanamentci de Coni*rvack1n Ambienial o dondcquiera que
se vcnda las I kvncias de pcsca.
ta Def*run»=«c. Lt SinuUkt taMb.df NUMI Voft
62
-------
Ri'u Hudson
Kl km ll.Hlsiin dt las t 1:iMr:i[m iLiki-rMi-ii HmlMin l>;ills> kistj
la Reprtsa Ktdtral en Tray:
• Pewra >• siiclta wlanKFile—eslc regflonnenlo aplicu a la parlc del
Kin I lntLun aiuuwja ankriontteiKt: y a (mini I**. rriKirurnn, no
arrilw liasta la primcra bsurcra iinjwsaNe far k» poss. Tiitos
ton pcces pescados dehsn ser regrcsadcs al agua dc inrncdialo
tin set I j:-Li mjd'.-r-..
*Aviso General Para la Salud
Pan Ian stguienles eMrnshan^ df imiiii. las
rccumendadunes generate pain la valud son:
Utt i'i u JL-TI: i H|IK i-M.in LII L\| jd No coma mi 5 de una. comida s\ mes de Irucha marriSn dc mas
de 14 pulsitda* (3S uentsrrwIrHjs).
Lago Kindrrhooh
• No coma mis de una wmida i\ ma. de mguilji amaicana.
• No oorna n irtjsiin pewada.
Valulif Hill cntnc ruta IS del condodo ,v tl Lu|>u N
RID Hudson v todos sin trlhjlarlin ha.-Ja la prlmora bamra
inip.iviltlf pnr ICK pi'iT-;
krpri'su (.'Hjrinlh basin la K«prr#y pmninia ill piK'nle rn bt
Rnle 9 rn Swjlh (items H'alfe
* No ccma mil de una conida al mes dc ictalo dc bcca pcqucna
demjis d* 14 pulgadis (J5 oetiliinclns>.
Ktpn vi de la Na de Mwriiuin rin-Bbajv nasla la rrpraa
alluenlccn (ileus Kwll\ Sur
Na coma ma* dc una Man ida al mes di; «rpa.
ftrpnjsj pn'uiitij jl |iurtllr cil la Ruute *«" Snuili Clfiii l-'nIS
hasla la Reprnai Federal de Trof
• No ccma ningun pcscudo.,
Al sur dc la Reprrui de Troy haMa el pucnle dt Cabkitt
• No Liin j pescadn a. iittnoi i)uc sea sJrtalij ana kaiw,
paidiaq JB, afcnqiK dc i-ipaldn azul. rcbilo dc risco o pcrchu
• No cixfia mas de twla tnAnida al roe* de (iiht-]i:k|u j, xrenque dc
cspaida s».ul, wtwitnk ristoo pciiha amg'illa.
• No fxma mas dc una oomida a la stmaita dc ijhala amoricano
(am so genera! ).
tl Rio Hudson ill sur dc CafekilL Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull. >
la Itahiu Superhir del I'uerlti de Vum Yiirk (al mirU' del
Putnlc V«rr«xano Narrowsl
- No ccna £i?.zarti shad.
• Nocvma mas de una ccnvida Jil wen tie angnita amnkanu, pcz
aguja Jd alldntbo, pez azulado, cwpa. f*rp» dcrodi. robato dc
t".ies vrandc, rt*s!n tk hm rcxiwfigi. cfcrinto arwiiris.. rrihJn
ra^ado, pfz dc efyc& albinos, sklura(bejre) bianco, channel
caitfish o perdia Manca, y no debe corner mSs dc una comida
per semanj dc triras especiei de pescado.
• No wwii ffl in de sds tanpujw juidis. por scrnmtt y no
tortsgriin niAftvn hqMIOpirtcmui (la fane srrtarilSa n waranjuda
que a V«CA EC diccn "mosLaza" 9 hrjjatkt) o lf*i I fquidus dtinik
cocinc IK eanjrcjoi.
Al Sir dc OvtAK Ferry aaiuiUreystaiic
• Nu cuna anguilii iuiiericina.
• i Jlv.-i.lLv.i-a las avisos psra cl Kio Hudson al .Sur de Caiskill para
ba «- u-, c^pcc-icsu
fro»d (.'urner! Resemrir H'nndado dp Putnam I
• Noccma mas de- una com Ida il me* de rfitialo de been grandu
dc mils dc 16 pulgaidis (41 ccnlirnclrcsl o pel de ojoa albino*.
Cross KIiTr RrHrmir |Conct»do de WrAcheslerl
< No coma mis de Una torrtida al im.-. de n*ul« de Ucs grande o
i iit':ilit ifc IXH. j ix^LH-fi-i f;np:i
dorada.
CHarca Ridder < Condado dt Naxaiu)
» No coma tarrta tlorada.
Cnarca Si, Jamev (Cundadu de SirfTolkl
- Nn tuniii i ii;b dc una connida al SKI, dc indas Ixs
especies dc ptucada.
Cbarca .Smil fi-Parque Rom veil (Condado tit Nassau)
• No coma angui la amcrkana,
* No corns mi* J* wia cowida al roc* «fc tarpa u 'u*va York, la
de Jamaica, el KMrftrni de Long Island, las Rihtas de
Kcmnic y (iardiners, el Kslrechu dc Hlurk Island, y la*
ajguas dc Ea Cosla SHIT de Lung Island
1 js reconicrntacirtficA generates para la salad no
apliean a esias entcnstaics dc ac^ia. Sin embargo,
algunas cspecics de pwcs y marisoc* estan com ammados
eon suslancias q jtmicss a nivck&que pucdm ser daninos
para la salud huKiiinj. Para atopdncn»i& de. la l
JIII.T k-.iiia » LlL'l t-iiii^ivjo iiJ-uL.
liquilkh duililL- Irrs Lxviiis.-.
?um mis.
Para vifatnmtkin mas ccfTipleU v icconKnd^uncs furj
rl cMolo. cukiiih i fif&ttit fafritvritt: Clitwk-tilt lit SjHfi
fi&tr ami fiaffif (RfL-iwiendwitmex de Salt/ft: Qrtbrrirv-s fa ta
I', •., „ l>i;.,,M.;.i : t:l I 'j ,J .. [Mjllln .1.1" lr Ill^k', ,U ID j" I
it SoM iH F-sHk) dc Nucva YixL. IJjnn; gnli,
al DeparumeniOHlc Salud al L-iHW-itt-l I5S. «smsktfi 1TSI5.
uiu crfii^ ^.niluila ik lis m.-txnentbid4ma
sljsifn «**i* cwrtqvirr dudi qu( miga fel ICIKI
sohnwmle) m d bitctntt: Af^i:WMWHi^p
-------
3 w
-c TS * E 5 it o * J3 *a M^
<= I € S 1J •£ u «£>•?! S * S £ c *
i S llPLsptiiiS II llll
i iiiilf liilfPlJS i* llll
I ||||ll|l|l|l|||| if llfS
— I ^ § S i-J * I -g 1 I ^ 5 E C J I S •§ iS^e
& ^E
, S E •£ OD 4J 1^
[ >5 o _ .£ 13 B
•™ ™ ••-• i/^Ei^^
: g| - 8|||l|
! * 2 _i i JL J - S M
lip d||
S « a ^ ,s .t £ s
«- -c —. T5 fliO^rJ™
^H
LJ
Q ri
II
,11 111
Sfi^.aJf f If 1213 S-a-g^rl =S^iE
M-JS -frgia-|l S I 1 a 1^1 "| I N El ^x^lS
w^iiPw!'i£weB.5'>a^EE.5:ita-S u&5=S
lltrH1' si!|lf-lill IHil
ielleB'sHilliiSStls SftSt.
64
-------
65
-------
Appendix J:
GLIFWC Outreach Materials
The maps on the following pages are reprinted with the permission of GLIFWC.
For many native people giigoonh (fish) arc part of a traditional diet and, as such, provide
health benefits. So if you rely on giigoonh as part of your normal diet, try to achieve a
balance. Continue to eat the same amount of giigoonh but reduce the amount of mercury
you or your family become exposed to by choosing safer giigvonh.
HOW TO USE THESE
MAPS TO FIND SAFER
OGAA (WALLEYE).
1. Choose a Map. Are you
making ogsa consumption
choices for pregnant
women, women of
childbearing age, breast
feeding mothers, or children
under 15 years old?
If YES. Use Hie mac titled
"Map for use by pregnant
women, women of
childbearing age and
children under 15 years
old".
If NO. Use the map tilled
"Map for use by women
beyond childbearing age
and by men*.
2. Locate a lake. Compare
its color to the map's color
key and carefully consider
the advice.
"red*
Ogas Consumption Advice
Top Map; Do nol eaiooaa greater than 15 inches. Only eat 1 meal per
month of ogaa less than 15 inches but this should be the only meal of
ogaa you eat in a month.
Bottom Map: Only eat 1 meal per month of any size ogaa.
"orange"
Eat ogaa smaller than 15 inches in your normal way, and restrict
consumption (see below) of ogaa larger than 15 inches.
"yellow"
Eat ogaa smaller than 16 inches in your normal way, and restrict
consumption (see below) of ogaa larger than 18 inches.
"green"
Eat ogaa smaller than 22 inches in your normal way, and restrict
consumption (see below) of ogaa larger than 22 Inches.
"blue"
Eat any size ogaa in your normal way.
"light blue"
No information available.
Restrict Consumption of Ogag Advice.
Top Map - eat no more Irian one meal of these larger sized ogaa per
month but
then this should be the only meal of ogas you eat in a month.
Bottom Map - eat no more than one meal of these larger sized ogaa per
month in combination with the ogaa you normally would eat; or eat no
more than 2 meats per month, but then these should be the only 2
meals of ogaa you eat in a month.
LABELING OGAA PRIOR TO FREEZING :
When saving ogaa for later, mark or label freezer bags so you know which ogaa are safe
for consumption by pregnant women, women of childbearing age, breast feeding
mothers, and children under 15 years old. For example, you could write on the freezer
bag "safe for mom and kids".
GENERAL ADVICE FOR FINDING SAFER
GIIGOONH
In Lakes
* Use these maps to find lakes and sizes of ogaa
that are lower in methyl mercury.
• Lakes with lower levels of methyl mercury in the
ogaa should also have tower levels of methyl
mercury In other types of giigoonh.
Type of giigoonh
' Generally, top predator giigoonh such as ogaa,
muskellunge, large mouth bass, smallmouth bass,
and northern pike will have more methyl mercury
than giigoonh such as lake whilefish. herring,
bluegill, sunfish. crappie or perch.
Size (Length)
• Eat smaller giigoonh, they will likely have lower
amounts of methyl mercury.
RISKS VS BENEFITS OF EATING GIIGOONH
Benefit: Nutrients in fish, especially oily fish, may
improve Lhe mental development and vision of
babies. Lake Superior whitefish and herring contain
these beneficial nutrients and are tow in meihyl
mercury.
Risk: Remember, mercury can damage the nervous
system, especially the brain. Fetuses and babies
are the most at risk because their nervous systems
are rapidly developing. Children exposed to unsafe
levels while in the womb have been found to
experience delayed development in walking and
talking, even though the mother was not affected.
Benefit: Eating even as few as two to three meals of
giigoonh a month may greatly reduce your risk of
death due to heart disease.
66
-------
Finding Safer Ogaa {Walleye) in Lakes Harvested by Bad River
HLLEIJCSl
I
AMNICCNL
L^ ,
MIDDLE!
WHTEFISHL
^f
LJ" 60M3
MWDNCFL
I3JN
hB
IrHs^"""" ?
MlLLELPC^L
i
MPraESOT*
CLAM RIMER R. ^yy, FQR |j^ By PREGNANT WOMEN
WOMEN OF CHLDBEAHNQ AGE.
V. AMD CHILDREN UNDER « YEARS OLD [
J-
(*
SSWWITL
.
|
; UPPER E*J CLWfiE L NTU
^cu«i ,' Q:°*1 »-BI
\J J / LDNOL \
\*t "^ / IMGLISHL
f * ^OSL^ ^1
^ N*UBt*WN I — ^^_
L MRCONL ECHOI ,
^--""i mu
^- - ^ ^™^r*^
* / - /
^ftOHfrL ^^ LOSTHWDL BLTTERNUTL ' L C
HOjOSMBEPL RKEL
3RS^ ^SOl n
uc SWAT Dine* y. ^ ciiRcrr L
VS; LONG L
^^
S6'" i ^
• l«n
SWUNITL
R1BL
10
H.VFFIFEI
^
TLEL FRE50UE ISLE LWE CHIUW
\ HW*I5L /
A\ /-yC^
t\y / Py
* f',^ • T
*L / •*" */A »^7
STURTLEL / -a \ /
RMTTKPL f H6HI f
FU*ffiEflUFL / ^
!
\IRNERl
Ogaa Low In Mercuiy
| CQaa imailiwslian 15 mctifeskwrn mwicurv
3] Ojsa sfrtatltf than 16 inchsa sown rrwreiity
1 Ml oyt^lcwin merrur^. s^t^rvsize
v^^^\
CourtyBou
n>.i, ml hi n« diii.il
WNICOh L f
F*~^ f LpptREAUCLWPEL WTUBTLEl PRSML*
MIDDLE E4UCUUREL HfHff L \ HARRIS L !
/ ^L \\ /
V L7./
WHTBHSHl / * 3=IDEBL_"^t >\|\,*/
/ JJ Hmenfojon L / - i
J* BONDL GORDOHL ^" • ', «*
I ^--~~~i TOUQEL / _
U»tK ^.EL5OUL u^TH^uT «^,
/ ^TE*LL Ty?Ts' SlUBTLEl
/ £j FI94JR
naju
^H*1NL
1«NlSrs.
J-
f^ X / LO
* !^JL — ^ * ^L
O5t*)ORSL J»LSER6L T1IBNERL
lOffy-ltf,
fcT L*C 3«JLT DOPE* j. i Qufim L
^ LONGL
hfEW-OCW L1^ CWRyj-ANDPESffiVGIR
MAP FOR USE BV WOMEN BEYOND J^
CHILDflEARfNG AGE ANDflV MEM
F1BL
<*
BCW^
ndir*
Wl I*p-U|n||rn.t| jnt
brii.q bdL.dM..
EISLEUKECKAIM
0«WWL/ TEMJcBFOOTL
^ / '
J ( MKblE L
rR*BL>f * *Y
f\ ««»E?f J
7 ^
-1/ ""L /
il CANCEL BLACKOAKt
»R4iNBSWiR
"W-ttlEft L
4
67
-------
Finding Safer Ogaa (Walleye) in Lakes Harvested by Lac Courte Oreiltes
NELSON L /
i sF-uBiL urtTLANIiL LOWER CLAIM L MAP FOR USE 8Y PREGIWJT WOMEN.
%Qfr TlOERCflTFL TW* WOMEN OF CHI LDBEARING AGE
s**™L^lr cj, 1(*r AND CHILDREN UNDER 15 YEARS OLD
ROUND Life *^ t^"
LITTLE ROUND L -_ «•" if
'—-=?• WL.. MOOSE L
9R1NDSTONE L *f TH?
DURPH6EL- JA IjflnKt-1
LAC COLBTE OREILLE5 £JB^F Tt T^ ^^^S
L CH1PPEWA
STONE I P u»Bnui
'-^^ " WHITEFISHL HMSOtl L
r""" **NBt /
^-^ *
X " " sissiBiGiui i i OF me PKMES
jf
tf L CHETAC
HRCH L n WWDFiLL I
MLLELflc! TMWWUPPLE FL
^^^k \ L*C¥SMITH FL
**ttCOYL f^f
MINNESOTA ^
POTATO L JU.MKIL
^•*nRESIDE LAKES
ROUhD L SANE L - JE?
• * ^HOLCO^EFL
1 NEL ONL SPIDER L 1QSTLAND L ' LOWER CLAM L
j» ^L vk ^E
1 * ' ' *"" ^H^n ^^ T^ _^
UTTLE RDUID L ^___^ flK U^
"~-iV Wl»_ MOO5E L
GRINDSTONE L *f '•K
DURPHEE L . J^L t ^Mt^9Hfti>
<^jr jt'iSpsrSBfL
LAC COURre OREiLLES iAf^ ^."T^J^^^
STONE L i'
" WHITERSH L ^SON
r^ ^ SiWJD L f
~^~---_^ '
jf ""• SaSSABAGAHA L L OF THE PINE
f L CHETAC
BI^CH L ' WINCFftLL L
THORNAPPLE FL
MLLEUtSL \ LADYSHITHFL
«\^
flMACOYL rv*
^
i i!i . i e ;-•. -
POTATO L ^PULASKIL
f Jt
RiXINDL SANDL ^T
f_ HOLCOHBE FL
OTTER L '
h-il _|--
Ogaa Low In Mercury
Bw.3saelo»in iHtcuiv. rastna «HiM*iiuiiin
Qpa? Tirdlar Him i1 mdiDE lew n IT creuiy
opaa smaia man 2! id SIM Wn n mwaiiv
m flgaa k» n rrBra»v. en an» sl»
T<«IJ| raulh linn buu;d»l «•• rlplBlBBtllBnl «d
L
1
s
OTTER L '
LEALIClAlRE
MP FOH USE BY WOMEN BEYONO
:HILDBEAfllNG AGE AND BY MEN
r\
68
-------
Finding Safer Ogaa (Walleye) in Lakes Harvested by Lac du Flambeau
V . .-.-.' ..-. • V • V! '
'.VOME'J DF CHI Li]EE«J!IP,ij AGE.
i.
yr^^-VgyS^r =^-r? A>~
-L. •^^feG-^'%"CL.
, i1 MMMI.UIA^CHM I ^^^^ j [
Lif-WiiL* fWHi "^^-^^_ ^ *^Li?^*1—-J>L[r L ^ hMhW-L -.TTTf CTIl^
HW> FOR USE BY WOfEi ffiYQfilD
CHII. Offta\Hn HiF AMP Fit tgH
69
-------
Finding Safer Ogaa (Walleye) in Lakes Harvested by Mole Lake
WV fOH US at PREUHIWr WWWE'J
t J MTL ^i,,
V
-------
Finding Safer Ogaa (Walleye) in Lakes Harvested by Red Cliff
LitfHftUHS
UM4L
J
LTlMNL
E PtXI LMB CHMK
l^euenucujuri
ujnri
, ipp»"
i*1'*'
ife
HUlEMuDhlL
HMC0N1
m
L1WML
J#Slt *1 t*ftl L
HtEUKEOWW
*™lE*ua*Jra'1
/
itmtf.fnaOj,tf.\. f fik
! HAP Ffl« US SV SWEGMWT WJWEW.
,
IWOCHILBHIBI UNDER » YEWS OLD .
/k*Jl
j^^i^
C)t* Lev In MIICIJ.J
ZlHI 3#UIMIWIHI riCfflNUrAfWUV
\ U
Uff K* IJS 6V WOM&l BETOHO
71
-------
Finding Safer Ogaa (Walleye) in Lakes Harvested by St Croix
rwoMijn «»j*twa~^^ i
^L
_™,_,——^*
' WOMEN Of CwiLCMAHlNS AGE,
MWCWILQHimjNDERISYIARSQUJ
UTTU WLLflW L HUOU
*tU(4L
I/ W{*™»lt
frl \™«' i
«™«L
•mi
X
>
fV
MIUTTUNUfl.
» •/.
^^»
TL \
BCUVBtMHl
BUKL"
\uppatnjmiEL
^ ... .Vt», ui-l: I
;n
CCDML
. pgMHNI.
V
O»H LOW In ItfetlHf
'i»j«mn-^.BJTmin!iai^ia«
• OgM«Mhlla> i^t^^nim » •^nh^v
J r^BMAIKKltMMIglUMUt
-
MAP FOft USE h» WOMEN HYONC
1 CHIUMEMINO AQfi AHC BY MEN
I Mvyrrtrfar-wst •Jm*
LJTTLE *D.LO« L MHU
\j l^m OfttfL
UNDL
marmnai
B*StP*TIIRSSWL
name SHOE L
X
WMDL „„, S
•smnnowri --Y
HDL
t Jf
HUJUOiHI.
ftl fi\
I*"*
HUM*
•mOMBTl
yr
72
-------
Appendix K:
San Francisco Bay Outreach Materials
THE GLLJFOHNU DEPARTMENT or HEALTH SERVICES
t.MiKi>^Mi.\i M Hi M 111 [M i M.UN-: iv. HK.ISI n
SAN FRANCISCO BAY SEAFOOD
CONSUMPTION STUDY
General Information
APKII 2001
(Jr Why vm Ihr Sjn F ranciyLU
Bay Seafood Consumption
Study dunt'f
A: In i 'M4, 1 he Regional Water
QualiiyHTontrnl Etrtarri'lRWQCFil
ffint\uct<*\ a pilot ^1urly ul iish
from 1he $.111 Ff.inrisro Ray . Tins-
ilurly- found nuorrury, fxilyrhlo-
nii.n.'iJ t)i|jrn-nyls (It'tisi. ..mil
iwsrii idrs !ii fish .il k'Vi'ls th,il
< i >il Id br ll.lrmiul I:: lliim.iii
health if ejton i.ifstri. BJVI! i>n
Illis sillily. I hi' ' liij: in -
ornmending iimhitm liuw muili
fish one i. ,m s,uV-lyj.sil. l
I'-lu.uy Infill u [(,•'!. Kf^ionjl
MrjniLrjrinj; ProsrJni IK Ml' I
I'urydrjtl [he Ca lir'urn ia Utfjart-
mfrU of HIM kh Strvict* (tiUMSl
lo tondutl Iliu Sj'i F Miidiio
Bay St'iihwid ( \insumjjtion Slurly
in VKS.
Thi- sd
Conium|i[ktn Siudy dune?
A: ThiiiliKly islht l«]f.m.'bils.tm-
Mimp'lion sdnly ever t iindu< led
in Sjn Frjntitrjo BJV. Ovtr
1 ,300 anj-;lfrs were.- inlervicwed
cwef a 1 2 monlh period in I OTJi
and 1999. CUH5 inlerv it-rt'fd
fiihinft on pier* and
i, as well as people
Irom [)riv,i1i> ,ind party
of j|4f hvho wji I'iilnrvi; Wtls
I ht- 1 rtlervifw in-
jbou! (lit-
r.'lhRi r.-ily, hoipsi/huk-l
inrame. education,
jrw.1 lyije of Ei jy I ish toni
part* ol ihc ftsti ciilcrt, arnf:
awdiunes* of llie Jieallh ddvi-
sory (orSar) Frartisco Hay fish,
I nK.'rviewers vain* alilc to s|KMk
Enjjlith anil al k'ail one crthcr
lartRuaftc*, inrludinfi Spanish,
Vietnam r si1. C'jntdiU'iiv «r
'••',. I •!!.-! .
C): Who is calinR fish from
the Bafi
fi\ L ijjily-ii.'vrn ptrcvrtl m" j n-
j^k'r^ ind'rvu'wi'il for the Uudy
iile libh Irmii !>«.• lijy. Ai ihuvvn
in Fiswrc I f'tiur.mi^ns wtrt-
Lht1 IjfRCit Krou|i of consumers
<>l [fjy fish, followed by ..^iitins,,
LiiliiuR. cind African Arnef leans.
Many anglers reporlvd that
wumiMi of dnkli)tarinj> aj^e Ibc'-
KvitMi 18 anil 4") j-tars cri j^cl
and young ehildrxft in (he houw.1-
hold ate- ihcir catrh as well.
. Hhnk llv uf CuiiMjriwrv *f
ush uf-
tcn tufium rttorcchfifln-als, Jilr.1
Q: How niLiih fiih (rant thf
Bay i-s safe l
A: Tlv health .
nipndsih.H .silulis limit Iheif ron-
silr)l|iti\.(.| H') iiu In--
men. ury ihiin rrejn fish. VVomun
who r 20 pounds Htl btwly
wpiphl, Ffw cnumplc!, .1 meal
sire tai a pefiwn weighing 1 fcl)
pounds is aL»u! 8 ounces, or
h.iliafnnjiid. Jhcffmif. an adull
weeing 160 pounds ran satfly
eat two lial I |X)und meals 01 iish
.1 monlh, fir .1 lot.n I of onp (inunrl
.1 inuiiih. Pi'upk1 whit fat
sm.illc'r fh>rtion^ of fifth r.in
s.ifrK fat mare 1lian kwnne.ils,
.is kiiiy, .is liipy duii'i t'.tl i IK irt
th.i n [ho arlviwiry frt-omnifnrt^
f>f r niurilli.
Tllrsi1 lillliK Ortly .l|)f>ly la fish
t .nielli in lllr S.sil I T.I nt IM ul
-------
Q: How mudl foil are people
i-al ir 5 from (tie Bay i
A: Inlc-rvicwiT* asked li IK1 y ,:i1i- from Lhr
Uay in the I'ow iwrks prior to
Hit1 inlfrvk-w M.iM ftjui wvfk>i.
Among arigSert who ate Bay lish.
60% lupuital filling .ilwui ixn-
meal or tew in the last lour w i -i i>..
10% Jito 4buul Swt> lllfdls, ami
,1 nolhrr 1 (1% alt1 rrw m* 1 hart two
n IIM K . Air it ,i n -Ai nciiums ami
I ilipinos ate1 the most fi^li, and
Couuisi..ins .Hf IK1 Iwst. Asiinn*
,tnd prajile with lower incomes
,ind tilut.i1 ion. huwt'wr, hwri'
more I ikely to eat while croaker.
J fisll illiutillttl kirii^fiyl'i tlul i^
more likely to contain rht-mi-
t.ili. A'.ijnvwi.Ti1 olsujinuri1 likely
:n i-.ii !'•( --in . i1 i n! lii - i •!:••.
|j
lish dill «) wilhin thi1 advisory
limiti uf Uvtt Hif.il> .1 nitinUi. tif
.L|XHJ! oru! fMJiind d month «l
r-. i ommefKfc came from all eth-
nic ^rnujj* iind baekgiBundi.
Asians and Atric.in- America ns,
hmvi'vcr, were fmm: likely 1<>
e,i1 .ilmve (he lirnh .
QL Are .in^lcrs avtare of the
ddvisury (tir SJ.H hrjrtdstu
I: r. !•.!•:•
A: Siidy one percent of an^If r»
WL' i nleiviewed mtft: jwjre I h ji
there i*ii rkealth .irlvivvry i
and {'.iLnr.isi.tii anpIpK were
murt: likfjy lei In.1 jwdrt' «f I!ILL
advisory th,i n \vere LatirKW .inifl
Asian*. Awiirunt.'ii of tfic dtivi-
sory also inrre.ifie(l with hoth
Only i4% uf UK- .in>;k-i> wf
interviewed wD'rt- aware of one
or mutt.1 t?l' trK1
.!>. limiiinij; huv>- niui.ti r
ale, or ealinj; imly the fill LI!
iiiri.
1cn ,ili! more ihan whiil lht> ,sd-
visory rt'tuinmtinl*. Angleri
who ate morv lhan ihe advisory
Q: wh,« i
recommencing?
A: CI>HS anri ihe KMP rucorn-
I--ITII lli.iUlil^k-fitVlWumi1 li--'!
within (he aflvitory limils, and
us* fish iWfpLir.Uiofl ointl
iTK'thcKls thai reduce Hio
of t:ontaminanls in lish.
'AY ,il«i rc-conimend th.tl con
linijfd outreach arnl educalion
fttH->rts be directed to all anglers,
Informing (hrrn iifwim (In.1 .nK i-
M»ry and sater |K<'par.tlion and
(•(xjkini; iiKffMKJs. Wann n % SIL^IS
nhmjld Ix1 [xwiprl in areas where
,• r ul IT-, lish. Oulre.i t h -
lit m by iHiipk* ftshinj* in thi-
Ba\- ri.rlhcr <.tep>i •>hnukl \v
hi ken !o tilwraftfiiH.' lidlijits of
other IwHJsehfjld mpmliers who
ronwjiiif liny "ish .inti It) (k-tiT-
mine which (Hlut.LlitKi.il mes-
hir iii!i:.m.itMMi .itunii the study, of atom edut si-
lion ,inrl outre,tch to anj;lf rs, contact:
Di.in.i ice. Alyce Ujihara, or Ian Walker
Eiwironiin ni.il Hc.illh Invest i&itions-6riincli
California IJf partrrK'nt of Health St"rvicn>s
I r>1 T Clay SiiiiT, 1 7ih F!ix»f
Oakland, LA 1M6 1 2
(SI D) 622-4SDO
www.dhs.ca.gov/ehih
Fntr inl'oriTViliiHi .ilKiul ncalth j(k-iMjrk«. for ltn:
San Iranc isco Bay and olhtT areas of California,
contact:
OiTu -f (if trivironrr'ijni.il Mtvikti Ha/,1 rql
Auwssment
CalifwnUi tnviroriilH'iH.il ljnnic< liiin .'.•:• ••< :
lr>n<:l,iy St.. Uilh Floor
Oakland, CA 94613
fi-ir irfjniTi.Lint!i ,ilx:.ir llii- tJiit.1 irorn ihf skilly
and thr Regional Monitorinji Propram, contact:
R.ii ner Hueni c kc. K V\P Manager
San FraiifiscnEstLi.iry Ir-iSlinn-
1W Kicnmoncl hi'lci Si i
1325 South 46* Street
Richmond, t!A U4HO4
|>HH iil-'ISIS'i
w"Al\v>1(-i .on;
For information ahoLit clean-up mr,isure-i in the
Kr Qualily
Control Boar
-------
!'HL CAUrCWNLA Dhl'AHTMENrOI ElLM 111 Si I"' l( is
I \\ ixn\\.ii- \.: M | |i 4 in |xvi ^i n. I.BKIXV, llu iv: n
SAN FRANCISCO BAY SEAFOOD
CONSUMPTION STUDY
Information for People who Fish
APRIL 2001
Many anglers. arc? concerned
,il*m( the n>h they !.iN 1 1 I nun
the San Francisco l!ay. A \'->'H
sludy fmirwl hinli li'ii'ls of im-r-
CLI ry, polyrh lori nated biphenyls
t,i j-ra-.jfi ul ( 1-firiH .i1* i,illinl
FCBsl ;md pesticides in Bay fish.
In mi i-
sumplion Study.
Hit." gi.wk at the Muoy were- lo:
• [J.ilrllT iriMini.ilioll t>n Son
Francisco Bay JII^ILTS ami
I heir fihb cmhLini|ilion h.jbiN
* identify anglers who arc at
rink d(ip to their fish con-
sumpl irui habits
• gather information m hH|>
develop educational pro-
sum|ilii>n from Ilic liiiy
Q; Why 1hmk ,ibuul the fish
you e.il'.
Ai Fi>h jn.1 ,in inipotwnt piiri uf
a heiillhy diet. However, tish
liuiri ihu Son FtiSniisLu Boy t«i-
lain rhcmirak that may In?
Iwirnful tu Y*Mi liwllll if i-Jk-rt
oltt'd. ItaMfl f»n ihf 1 '>')< Mudy,
1IK1 Of fitc ur invinuinuTiuil
Health Hazard AiiM'SHmc'nt (a
n/ tMM-d a rwalth ad^'isor\' 1(jr
1llf Bjy. Tlli* tldviiury nwk«
rerom mcnda I i on - .ifxiiil how
muili fish uiit- i.jn s,i My wi
Iriim ihc San Francisco liay.
Q: Huw muth fiih frum Iht
B.iy '-. safc to eat?
A; Tin.1 rKMlth advisory r«om-
m«innHlh,it ArluIlK limil thi'ir con-
sumption H>! Son Fr.uKiwit Roy
••(•'i i: • no mur*1 than two meals
a month. Aclulis ."I!M.» slttmld nol
<>st slri | MY! h»HK r ! r> i n( ht"~
in longth lx< juso Ijrjjcr !J*h oi-
Itn have m«rt c,htimit:alh jnrl
prti>n,int, hrc jslfacrl ing. of may
h ...... r.t- |>ri.'^nonl slnHJfil imr r.r
more lhan one meal a month. In
.irliJili:rl. Ilicy sllnii'il iKir r.ir
any meab at striped basi over
I? irnhi">. ., or
half .1 jwu nd. Therefnrp, a n aritill
wL'iyJipny 1 Ml [minds can sdCcrly
eat two half pound mea Is of f inh
a monlli, or n tolal ol'tmc |,K-U)rnl
a mrmth. People who eat smaller
p>i >n 1 1 »iv of fi sh < tin sjfuly Wil
mum lhan (wo mtjals, ,is Jung a^
(ht'y dori'l r.i; more lluin ll«- .id-
visory recommends |K"r nwjnth.
.1 limits apply HP mohl lid over a
12 nwndi pt'iiwl in iyy8 ond
I1 t'jrvitiiv»>d an-
£lci» UFI i^hiiij; fjiuo ond ihuft-
Irnes, at vvt'll a*, anglers fishing
from ppivOtL- jnd pjrty bojts,
Everyone o\i>r 1 il years «l agr
•.vln.) w.n fishing wos iiHer-
vierwpd. fhe initfr\'i(".h. UK l.iHvd
quiiliuns .iljuul tht.' jn^kT'j
elhnicity, education, houwhold
income, (In.- omounl ond tyfx1
of I'Kh consumed from (he Hay,
poio uf the fiili eoltPi, ond
awareness of (he health advi-
syry fur SF Boy slih. Inlefview-
eri were able Hi speak
andot k-,i<
including Span ish . Vielnameie,
f ,irl i >!!<•«•. ill M.iml.nri
Q; Who is t'Jling fish frum
thr !
A: Lighty-seven percpnl ot an-
!;k'r5. iiilfivii'vvcil k« ihe itutly
ate I ish trorn 1 he Hay. An shown
ill Figuri1 I , Cju<. Ji itin> '.vere
the largest group of consumers
uf 6si.ir>s
-------
I'm CAUKIBNIA LHrAiiiMi vi in UMIIH binvn i^
Q: Who is e.il i njj num? Ih.in is
rrcommi'ndrdf
A: MoM .1'v.ilt f. who had palon
fish did su within trie advisory
limits of (me [round a month of
.xlvi soi y fiih. However, one in
len ate more* lh;m whsl the ad-
visory recommends. Angles
who Hfi mon» ihan ihe advisory
letfjpiiiwiulvc Jrne ironi all eth-
nic groups and baelqgrauncfe.
A>i,ui> .iiid Afrit..!!1! Americans.
however, were more likely to
- limit,
Q: Wh.l1 will happen ifl 0.1!
tuu muth fish from the Uayf
A: I Mi nj; l.irs;,<> amounts of fish
fropii tin.1 SF (S,iy will not nufce
vti.J •« icl; ri^hl .nv.iy. However,
wtinB Ijr^i- amounts vi Bay fish
for many years may increase yiajr
risk ui developing unci'i vt oilier
healih problems. Prej»nani anrl
breastfeed ini; women may [Ww.
llu'sc i'hri.im ica k on la ihtiir dc-
wlopiin b^bits. Muiuiiy JrHl
I'tiBs may in['n*a I hi* rhancff
ami children. \^^ \M- ^.ilV-.
CDHS reComnii'lKJs UM( yim ..ir-il
your family (O||DW ihe guideline*
in Ihf hudlth Jtlvisuiy
Q: Are .ins;lf>i .iw.irr of ihp
\vere* Lalinnti and AtianH. Awarti-
n«s of lilt- odvi*ory O!>H> in
< riMM-rl with l«)lh incom> and
<-i:.i< ,u ion.
Only Wlii of \hf an^len, w*rc
of OrK1 Or rnLirt; vi the
r.; i uinwcnctotionf ill (he hwhh
advisory. ~-ii( h
in ihh!
A: The hwhh .idviwwy
to fish from ill I OVLT lilt: San
Fr.incivn ft.iy iniide the (.lolden
Undj^e, including S I;.I:M
ISridyci. MIIWLVLT, ihere jru
health advisori^t ror ruher areas
of t.dlifd'iiM. lfn: DLfjdrl men!
or Fi-ih and {Dime's (',tliiami,i
Sfxtrl I itlwifi Ki'i>uliitH>iit ijouk-
let contains a list oi Ihese .irtvi
surifi. Dit.'y mjy dlio IJL' found
on ihe Internal ,it:
v/fish .hsnil .11 Kl
."^. hlml
Qr Are slort bought fish safer
1l> (Mtf
A: The fpfier.il Ffwid a nd
Adniiniilralioni I FDA I l
sihlf fmr malfinj; sure thai fi*h
and other pruduCIS i n ihe ilure
are safe. In jjenpr.il, Ihp fi^h
yt«j buy in a store or rosljifrdiil
>. --.iii1 to p.it. However, FI1A
retommL'aids (lut wumen who
are prepnanl, planning to he.
come prt.'snjnt, or nurspn^, and
yrnung rhildren should nol eat
any ihark, sword fp&h, kin^
markerel, ,ind lilelHh her sipse
thu.'y tonuin higher k'v^'li of
merniry. I'llA .iko advises
womc'ii who arc pjreRiuml or
planning to rternme prepnanl
to ejt .I vjriety of hsli. Thtse
women ran safely eat I i
ounces per week of cooked
slore bought fish per week.
Mure miuiMi.iTitin ..ilKnil FDA's
k their fiih uit-
inj; methods thai reduce 1he
level of them ic al conlaniindrils
in (ish. Saier melhods inf lude:
• Li I only Ihe fillel.
• Thr'ov.1 awJV lilt1 yuts, skill,
and fiitty jhirls of I lit' lish.
M.iny rhem ira Is b uild up i n
ll'i--!' [i.inx
" K.ikf, hroil, j^rill (tr sleani
fish so th.it the juires drain
a wjy. Th row aw jy a 1 1 Ihe f Jt
,1'ld ( LX)killi> |U ( H'S.
• E Ilial tire
nrit included in I hi; .idvi>>u-
ry1, siich a^ vjlmon, i,nielt,
anchovies, and herring,
* Eat J variety of fish, no! just
one lype of fish,
» Fish in .1 v.iriely of locations,
mlional eft'orts br dirtTtrd to-
iv.inK, ,Liij;k.rs whu u.ir iinsv fish,
nr who pfiparc and rook Ihcir
ilshi in w,iy> ihai may inlunihl iin m uii i mi-
num|Hifm I imils and saftT way* of
|W|Wfing ,inrj ((iiAirij- fish. Si^ris
ififbiminj; pcopk* ohoiil iht- advi-
Mify shmJlfl olsitlH1 |Kiils-iana \fc, Alyrt? Ujihan, or
LnvimnitiHiMl Hc-rn"> fin lhfS,m FMMI i-i \i
Say and (Hher areas of Clalifor-
ni,i, ttnitad:
Healih Hazard Assessment,
California tnvironrrH'ni.il
Proteclion Agency
ISIS Clay St., IMh fkjor
Dtikalnd, CA^ftn
1510)622-3166
WWW.DehFUXIA.gDV
76
-------
77
-------
Appendix L :
Full Text of Presentation by Dr. Stuart Harris
Luncheon talk at the Annual National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Sponsored by EPA. MN Dept of Health, SRA
Chicago; Holiday Inn Mart Plow, May 9t 2001
IMPACTS OF FISH CONTAMINATION ON NATIVE AMERICAN CULTURE
Stuart Harris, Natural/Cultural Resources Coordinator, SSRP Program, Confederated
Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, PO Bo* £38, Pendleton OR 97801;
stuarthairis@ctuir.com. 541/966-2408.
Good afternoon, I'd like to begin by thanking the Conference organizers and the EPA for
bringing us all together today. It's customary where I'm from, to also wish you a safe journey
home and that you find your home in the same condition that you left it in.
How many of you have a 40IK or a retirement account? Raise your hands. How are your
accounts doing? Well, my fish ate my retirement account, and they are not doing very well.
Your accounts may be down 50% but are recovering. My account is down 99% and seems to be
at risk of disappearing altogether.
[ am hem to speak to you about cultural impacts derived from fish contaminants and fish
advisories, The task of informing a population about what is in their fish, and how much, what
type, or what pan, of a fish they can consume is no small thing. Information from many different
places has to be integrated. When an advisory impacts a Sovereign Nation such as a Treaty
Tribe, ALL of the factors associated with the Advisory and how it may impact that Sovereign
Nation have to be taken into account,
I am a staff scientist for the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, or
CTUIR- My job is to analyze the risks to our people and our culture from pollution impacts, 1
have to protect my people's treaty rights, resources, culture, and reservation. I have to educate
my people about any hazards stemming from pollution. I also get opportunities to educate
regulators and academia about what pollution impacts mean to my culture and the health and
future of my children and all the childnsn to come.
The CTUIR is a sovereign government that has a legal interest in the natural resources
upon which the CTUIR's treaty rights are based. The federal govcmmcru, when it entered into
this treaty, affirmed that it has both a moral and legal fiduciary obligation to protect the natural
resources upon which our treaty is based. The United State government made a legally binding
promise when it signed our treaty, and this obligation extends to all parts of the federal
government. This obligation does not fade with time and it extends far into the future. The
United States Constitution refers to all treaties as "the supreme law of the land." Therefore,
upholding our Treaty is a constitutional duty that extends to all federal agencies. Tribes have at
least the status of states, and many tribal governments were established by Treaties long before
the states where they are now located came into being.
111-33
78
-------
The CTUTR or Umatilla Indian Reservation, is located in northeastern Oregon near
Pendleton, Oregon, and is occupied by the descendants of three Columbia Plateau Tribes - the
Cayuse, the Walla Walla, and the Umalilla Tribes. My family and relatives have lived within the
Columbia River watershed for thousands and thousands of years. The river and all of the inter-
dependent resources have sustained us both physically and spiritually for that whole time.
Our elders tell us about the creation of the world. First, the Creator made the world and
the oceans. The Fish and the food they eat were the fiist people. Then the Creator made the
deer, the coyote, other animals, and their foods. He made the roots and berries and medicines.
Everything was as it should be, but after a little while Itsiyaya (Coyote) said "Everything is good,
but something is missing," So the Creator created humanoids. They came without instructions
and had to be trained, just like any coyote pup. The Creator, through the itsiyaya, taught the
humanoids about how to be human-beings (these are the real people like the fish people) and to
respect the other people and their things in this worlds and told humans how to work with them
and to use them properly.
We, the Tetokin or Indian People, celebrate our origins at every meal through die telling
of these stories and through the placement of the food of our plate. The foods are placed in the
order of their creation in a counterclockwise circle on our plates at home and at our ceremonies,
the same direction as the solar system turns. Our people know and have known since these
stories originated that the Earth spins into the sunrise, and travels counterclockwise around the
sun, which in turn travels counterclockwise around the galaxy. We even have ancient symbols
and stories that describe the spiral galaxy turning counterclockwise.
My people have many other oral histories or stories. These are not "mythology" or
superstitions of an unobservant people, but portray the natural world very accurately. We have
stories about early eruptions and their effects, of Mount St. Helens and Mount Mazarna or Crater
Lake, and about ancestors of modem animals. Our word for elephant, which has been around
since those times. We have stories about our people getting caught up in the Missoula Floods,
which occurred approximately 16,000 years ago and created the present course of the Columbia
River and other I and forms. Our Oral history story tells about this event, but modern science only
**discovered" this within the last 50 years. Our oral histories are the distillation of wisdom about
the ecology refined over innumerable generations, not something that needs to be improved by
mechanical measurements which arc not as sensitive as our own eyes.
Under the Treaty of 1855 [12 Slat. 9451, the Tribes ceded lands to the United States yet
retained rights to perform cultural activities on those lands, including but not limited to fishing,
hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing livestock. Many legal cases have upheld the
Treaties and confirmed that the tribes have legal rights to at least half the fish in the Columbia
River, The problem today is that 99% of the fish are gone, and every single remaining fish is
contaminated to a greater or lesser extent. Plus, the water they live in is contaminated and over-
committed to conflicting interests such as hydropower and irrigation,
1 do, and will continue, to exercise my Treaty reserved rights to the fullest extent possible.
It is important for you to understand that my great-grandparents paid for these rights with their
blood. There are thousands of martyrs just like my great-grandparents in the histories of the
Native Sovereign Nations throughout these United States. You must work with their descendants
79
-------
who are still dealing On a daily basis with the memories and consequences. These people, like
my relatives, insisted -even when they were held at gunpoint and executed for resisting - that
they, their children, and their children's children, must have the resources needed to carry our
cultures into the Future.
My culture is dependent on, and springs forth from, exercising all the practices, activities,
and lifestyles we have developed from a partnership with the ecology, thousands of yeare ago. 1
insist that I must be allowed to effectively exercise my treaty rights. I insist that 1 have the
freedom to go about my business without interruption. I insist that ] be able to practice my
religion just like any of you in this room. And I demand the freedom to consume any and all
parts of all the foods that my ciders have taught me are the center of our cultural and spiritual
lives without fearing for my life or the lives of my children.
I and my family have committed to uphold a spiritual and cultural duty brought down to
us young people from our elders. That duly includes the responsibility, for as long as anybody
can remember, to cherish and partake of the gifts that are freely given to us. When 1 was young
and full of pride for giving to some charity, one of my elders explained to me that the giving of
tithes is a good thing. Me then asked me if I would go so far as to offer up one of my limbs for
another's dinner. I was shocked as a youngster. Si this notion of cutting off my leg for someone's
dinner. He continued on, "You think you are so generous, but compared to the tsuyem (the fish)
your gift is but a token. They willingly offer up their lives and flesh for us." Yet today, their
worth is valued in kilowatt-hours, acre-feet of irrigation water, and parts per billion of pollutants.
The salmon return year after year to the remnants of their homes. Every last one of them
fulfills their part of a compact that both our peoples made in the beginning. The development of
the modem infrastructure has made it very hard for the fish. Nevertheless the fish willingly die
trying to come home because they promised to come and nourish us. We honor them each year
when they return, and at every meal, and we try to take care of their home while they are gone to
the ocean. We tell our children to be like the fish because they, just like my human elders,
selflessly give of themselves for the benefit of the people. We don't club and throw away our
fish, just like we don't throw away our elders.
I would hope that you begin to understand that for my children to live full and beautiful
lives the health of those natural resources which we subsist on, must be held at the highest level
by all. I cannot emphasize enough that the federal government has a fiduciary responsibility to
protect our Treaty resources. The states must also recognize that these treaties have been upheld
numerous times in court and are the supreme law of the land, and should be treated as AR ARs.
I am a Cayuse-Nimipoo, Our traditional environmental knowledge-based culture, which
has co-evolved with nature through thousands years of ecological education, has provided my
family and relatives with the knowledge that their unique and valid system of holistic
environmental management is the truth. That truth being, that our traditional methodologies are
the best way to manage a watershed given the limited space, water, and resources, as evidenced
by thousands of years of implementation. It is also understood that throughout the year, when my
relatives participate in activities such as fishing, hunting and gathering for foods, medicines,
ceremonies, and subsistence, the associated activities are as important as the end product. In the
Judeo-Chrislian tradition, an analogy would be "kosher" dietary practices. All of the foods and
111-35
80
-------
implements gathered and manufactured by my traditional brothers and sisters are interconnected
in at least one, but more often in many ways. I have met many people who follow cultural
teachings or lessons brought down through history from the elders. Our individual and collective
well-being is derived from membership in a healthy community. We are trained how to properly
access the ancestral lands and gather traditional resources in a continuously sustainable manner.
With training, young tribal members such as myself gain the ability to satisfy their personal
responsibility to participate in traditional community activities and to help maintain the spiritual
quality of our resources.
In preparing to come here today, I asked many people about their culture. I am assuming
that all of you have a culture. Is there anybody here who doesn't have a culture? Everyone does;
it's those things that you have carried around Tar generations. Maybe it seems they only come out
on holidays. But some cultural attributes are so pervasive throughout a society that most people
couldn't recognize them if their life depended on it. Take reading for example. Reading is a
cultural attribute. It's been around for 8000 years or so on the Indo-European continent.
Think about today's topic, cultural impacts of fish advisories. What if you were asked to
give up reading (obtaining and sharing information through written words and numbers)? How
would your life be changed if this fundamental, cultural core attribute, were impacted? If it wen:
taken away from you completely, it would be a disaster. Why else do we fight illiteracy at every
turn? And even if you were only allowed some percentage during each day, it would probably
still be a disaster. What would you choose to read? Would you choose to read your email or an
Agatha Christie novel? Would you choose to use your word quota on tracking your retirement
account status? Or would you waste your cultural word quota by reading the credits at the end of
the show? Civilization as we know it today would be forever changed.
You may be thinking, "Choose something else besides reading. Reading is too ubiquitous
in my life, too integral to our society and it's not realistic to think we could give up leading. If I
gave up reading. I wouldn't be me. My profession communicates with written words and
numbers, and my promotions and tenure are likuly to be based on how much 1 publish, Without
my profession, what would I be? How would OUT laws be taught? How would our ideals he
expressed?"
Your reaction to this concept is exactly the same reaction I got when 1 asked my eiders
what if we were forced to give up eating our fish. Many of the reactions I got started with a
shocked look, and then they demanded proof- who says these fish or those words can harm me?
Why do I have to throw away this fish or bum these books? That i$ an example of a cultural
impact of a fish advisory. Of course, it's "for the good of the people." But before you know it,
people will be reading the comics and novels and going back their traditional ways of eating one
or two pounds of fish per day. There's nothing like curling tip in a chair on a rainy afternoon and
eating smoked salmon with a good novel.
I have been told that there may be people in regulatory positions who think that people
who don't comply with advisories are dumb, or uneducated, or deserve to get sick if there is a
way to avoid the fish, t know that I will be blamed for not complying wilb an advisory. Some of
you here today may think that people like me need to "get reaJ" because this is a modem
Hl-36
81
-------
chemical progressive world, and I'm trying to stand in the way of progress, and so I should hurry
up and get assimilated into the good old American melting pot.
1 need to explain that our fish and all of the supporting activities have been formulated for
real reasons, survival reasons, a long time ago. 1 have been taught that I am part of an ancient
oral tradition of cultural norms. The material or fabric of this tradition is unique, and is woven
into a single tapestry that extends from far in the past, and long into the future. A risk from
pollution that potentially affects one person of my community may have lasting impacts
throughout all of the community, forever. In other words, a wave of risk can ripple outwards.
affecting all of the individuals in our culture, just like a wave generated and propagated in a
tapestry. You must remember, that if.a culture dies, the only remnants sue the material artifacts.
In the event of the unthinkable happening, a continuously sustainable, natural resource based,
material culture, such as the one my people and many other indigenous Tribal Nations embody,
would rapidly disperse into the natural environment leaving no trace of our living cultures.
I recognize that the regulatory framework is fragmented by an accident of history, A
problem was: recognized a piece at a time and legislation was written to fix each piece as it was
identified. But I cannot accept such a piecemeal approach, I and many like me are not going to
change, not because we're being stubborn, uncooperative, or unreasonable, but because our
ancestors have withstood a holocaust, termination policies, and religious persecution and 1 will
not let them down,
1 feel that advisories may be useful, but only as an unfortunate interim necessity,
Responding to fish contamination is not just a communication problem. It is not a problem of
communicating risk across a cultural divide. It is not just a matter of balancing risks and
benefits. The problem is, we need to see EPA setting goals, taking action and standing firm to
make things safe again. We need to see action in developing multi-media and watershed
approaches to permitting. Trust responsibility is not a question of wall street profits verses
children's health; it is a legal obligation.
The situation in the Columbia River at present is; that if a Tribal member fully exercised
his or her treaty rights for long enough, given the amount of contamination in our fish now, it
would probably be lethal. I don't want to have to scare people away from fish or their culture,
but I must protect women and children and elders. Ultimately, we need to clean up the fish and
the river, and we need to do it before any more cultural knowledge is lost.
To illustrate my point, here is an illustration I want to show you. [Figure 1; "Risk-
Benefits or Loss-Harm"]. This slide depicts, on ihe left, ihe risk-benefit paradigm that most of
you are familiar with. It assumes a 17.5 grams per day, a suburban fish ingestion rate. It
assumes that people have the choice to eat more fish or no fish. In this case a person can balance
the benefits to the heart from eating fish with the risks from the chemicals. For a suburban
situation this method works. However, there are members of my family that traditionally eat
1000 grams per day (two and one half pounds per day}. They and many of my people have done
this for thousands and thousands of years. Today, this level of fish ingestion is generally
precluded either through the loss of fisheries or through the high levels of contamination, so most
of die fish benefits have already been lost. We have already lost most of the heart-protective
benefits, and now have chemical risk. We have already lost the diabetes protection and the
82
-------
1000
gpff*
Risk-Benefit or Loss-Harm-Magnifiers
Traditional Subsistence Baseline
~'
1
PUFA cardio Benefit
Suburban Baseline
immmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Chemical Risk
Health impacts - last cardiv-PUFA
Health - chemical risk
Health - tost diabetes protection
Health - lost neurological function
Health - nutrition; poor replacement
Cultural - lost ceremonies
Cultural - lost identity,, religion
Cultural - Broken Treaties; Trust
Economic - Income & Trade
Social - lost educational opportunity
Magnifiers; inequity, existing deficits,
clusters of co-risk factors.
Figure 1. Comparison of risk benefit and loss-harm-magnifiers
for traditional fish consumption.
neurological protection, both of which are well-documented benefits of eating fish. We have lost
the nutrition, which is compounded by poor quality substitutes. Losing fish also means that we
lose some of our ceremonies, our identity, and our religion. Our treaties have been broken once
again. Also gone are commercial income from fishing and the fish used in trade networks. We
are losing opportunities to educate our children and transfer the precious knowledge from one
generation to the next. And finally there may be magnifiers of increased sensitivities, clusters of
co-risk factors within tribal populations, disproportional impacts, and existing cultural deficits.
This is why I think the conventional risk benefit paradigm is inappropriate for tribal situations
and I would like to encourage the EPA to work with the Tribes on a Tribal method.
You must remember that we, the Tetokin, have been impacted through the encroachment
Of your society. Our tribal population has been affected by biological warfare, ecological
warfare, economic warfare, and downright attempts at genocide. Yet, we have survived, with our
culture intact even though we have been forced to endure this 600-year holocaust- The real
history of our people is not being taught to you in school. Our struggle is not over. With each
successive generation we are forced to react to numerous environmental, cultural, health, and
ifils
83
-------
education impacts from member* from your society who $till perceive us a characters in a
Hollywood movie.
My people have to deal with this complex set of problems, complete with numerous
entrenched interests such as agribusiness, mining, and government, infrastructure development,
and competing value sets vying for ever-decreasing resources. We use a logical process that
includes education, law, analysis, research, and planning. Each of these processes is filtered and
translated through otu* culture. Please note that the current EPA guidance for environmental
justice fails to capture tribal concerns and does not deal fairly with the science of traditional
environmental management. It does not adequately describe how to evaluate the distribution of
risk between population groups such as tribes compared to suburbia. It completely omits
evaluation of differences in impacts between the American society and my culture, and between
different Tribal cultures and the resources on which those cultures depend. For example, I know
thai traditional tribal members with subsistence lifestyles will receive at least 2 to 100 times
more exposure to a contaminant than a suburban resident might receive at identical
environmental concentrations, I also know that my fellow tribal members typically have a larger
burden of co-risk factors such as poor nutritional status, loss of natural diet, poorer access to
health care, differences in metabolism, and so on. This means that tribal members might
hypothetically not only receive more exposure, but might also be more sensitive, and have more
obstacles to overcome in order to be healthy. Therefore, the cumulative impacts could be greatly
magnified for tribal populations versus suburban populations.
Fish advisories ate based on the best available science, and communicated to the public
with the best socio-demographic profiling available. No stone is (eft unturned in attempts to
enlighten us about making wise choices. Yet when you communicate your recommendations to
Native Sovereign Nations such as mine, please remember that we too have logical, repeatable,
verifiable, processes that I feel need to be taken into consideration up front, early in the decision
making process.
To illustrate my point,, I want to review the conventional scientific method because my
tribal religion is based on an observational and applied science that has proved its worth over
thousands of years through survival of my people. I want to briefly review the process for
moving from observation, to hypothesis, to theory, to law. Tribal science has followed this path
also.
Science is the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and
theoretical explanation of phenomena. The scientific method is a general term for the lines of
reasoning that scientists follow in attempting to explain natural phenomena. It typically includes
observation, analysis, synthesis, classification, and inductive inference, in order to arrive at a
hypothesis that seems to explain the phenomenon or solve the problem.
Remember that a hypothesis becomes theory if it withstands repeated testing and
application. A hypothesis is a conception that is tentatively assumed, and then tested for validity
by comparison with observed facts and by experimentation. A theory is a hypothesis dial is
supported to some extent by experimentation or factual evidence but that has not been so
conclusively proven as to be generally accepted as law. Scientific law, such as the laws of
physics, are SO conclusively confirmed as to be inarguable.
84
-------
is a product of the society that develops it, and the way that the theories and laws
are expressed serve the needs of that society, American Indians have been observing natural
phenomena, describing them, experimentally investigating them, and explaining natural
phenomena and the natural resources for thousands of years. This tribal environmental
knowledge forms the basis of traditional environmental management,
The reasoning that led to the determination of how to behave in the environment, based
on what the environment consists of, is transferred to members of the tribe. Therefore, when a
tribal member is gathering cultural materials, whether it is food or something else, he or she does
it in a manner that reflects the principles of the science of traditional environmental management.
This is the application of science, traditional tribal science, distilled into daily practice for the
survival of a people.
The principles of traditional environmental management have been codified into law,
Then: am some things you can do out in the environment and other things that you cannot do.
The results of an action affect many things. The entropy of complex ecosystems is difficult io
determine using "western" science, but the results of the most probable reactions have been
observed by our elders and is related to us younger people through oral histories. Attention to the
knowledge passed down means immediate survival and continuation of our people. Disregarding
the knowledge can result in eating a poison, starvation or poor health. For countless generations
our elders have told us about environmental conditions, and that our behavior is a product of
rigorous and proven methodology that has guaranteed our survival through all types of natural
cycles. Our lifestyle is resilient and has persisted through floods, droughts, cataclysms,
upheavals, and warfare. We carry the unique and individual genes specifically adapted to and
modified by our homelands.
Therefore, when I am asked, "What is cultural risfc?" my answer is;
"Because our people,, the Telokin, have been genetically modified by the ecology
for thousands upon thousands of years, and have had their behavior modified as a
result of responding to the flux of the ecology of our land for thousands upon
thousands of years, and have produced a viable holistic environmental
management system designed for continuously sustainable enhancement of our
culture, and because the fabric of our very existence, including our sounds,
medicine, science, art, music, and lifestyle is a reflection of thousands upon
thousands of years of site-specific environmental shaping, any impact to those
resources of which we are an inseparable part, is a risk to my culture."
I was asked by an educated man once, "How can a culture be irradiated?" He thought that
only tangible things can be irradiated and therefore only tangible things can be at risk. He could
not accept the notion of cultural risk. My answer is: "If my people are kept from a sacred site
because that piece of mother earth has been contaminated, then I cannot transmit traditional
teaching to future generations about the life significance of that site and therefore a significant
part of ray culture will be irreversibly altered."
How can you put a price on a sacred song that is derived from a landscape feature and is
significant to the survival to my people and therefore my gene pool? Impacts to the ecology
85
-------
directly impact the health of my people and put my culture at risk. Through time, my genetic
characteristics may be adversely affected, thus destroying a multi-thousand year long fabric of
blood. When an organism interacts and specializes within a finite set of environmental factors for
thousands and thousands of years, that organism becomes the ecology. Within an ecological
system all parts are important and all parts interact. Eventually the parts become mutually
dependent, and neither part can be removed without harming or killing the whole.
When 1 asked the elders, they said to me, its true we have become the salmon and they
have become us. We have lived and died for so long within the cycle of salmon that our flesh is
one within the salmon people. We have lived here for more than ten thousand years eating
salmon, deer, roots, and berries. The very molecules in our bodies have been passed back and
forth between earth, plants, animals, and human beings. We have lived so long with our brothers
and sisters thai we have become one of them. We honor them every time we eat, setting our
table just so. We pray for forgiveness from the Creator so the soul of the departed goes quietly
into the land of light. We ask that their bodies nourish us and to make us strong. We cannot be
separated from who we are. And we cannot forget the people who gave their lives for our
children. Our lives, our voices, our thoughts, OUT bodies, are derived from these foods and water.
No one can tell us anything different, because we know who we are, and where we came from.
Our way of life and our culture are from our foods and the ancient knowledge of how they come
to be with us, within us. When we contaminate the fish we contaminate ourselves and our
children.
I want to close by asking you to remember that, no matter how narrowly your job
description may be written, that water and fish are part of life. 1 challenge you to find ways to
utilize your culture for the benefit of all our cultures. For when we've negotiated the best
protective levels and developed fish-friendly infrastructure, all of our children, yours and mine,
will thank us because what we do today lives on in history. Thank you.
ii-'
86
-------
Appendix M:
EPA Office of Water Brochures
!
Bu
? a ff .
LU
|— C-
S O
iS
o ^
1*2
2
O
uj jZ
CC 5
"' OC
- - ^5 ^
-5 .2 S ^
*_, •/ u^ o ^ -"^ A " — c;C^"v"> ^ c > T! "^ "J^G-J
•" ,x ^ •/. '-^ ^• s • — _z ~: ^ ^ ^. ^ --^ - ^'E o &« c"[i;
£ ^7 ^ ~F ^ tc y;.1-^ ^ i_ Jl >. B" c ^ - ^-5 ^ ^ "^^
Ijr rri S -^ -^ ^"J.^ .£ £ £=Bt^'^^^ -' c ^ ^ ? o ^ .£c£
-• 2
- i
:- -
87
-------
0
LU
05
1-
O
cc
<
oc
m3
DC H
O C/>
K LLJ
tn oc
*• £
(T. 0
* ^
"C o
- -
itg
~ t e
.'i 3
^,
•3
hers
H O
2 S
— --rtO -a -
tj _ j •j L ^
rt —,
L* <—'
^ i>
•i! H
id 3 ^
3 s2
S „*••-
- e u
r •- _,
gSS
£ CX >,
.£
TJ ~
S ;-
c jy
rj) '•»-.
> * yis
•3 e ,5 _
" S « E -t
ra *
4J JC
il
s
-
-i.
,-
be
—
•
fj
-^
.
n *
c o j:
w
S
„ TJ
-
- -
-•
C
;i "s
•J- -=
J !/r
1 r;
J= ^
C = ffi
!
-.
'-
—
2 c
^
:/: ^
*- *~
-•
—
(3
.'
=-
o
.'
.
I
ri U
'-, — :
V: 'jr. O
« fi 6
-C '
:r
II
"-<
CC LL O)
HI D O
OC < Z
U. O <
—
~
- ?
s
— C'
T •/;
y
.
i- S <= V
^
tG gC
" ?c rs
£|^r
^ 5J F*^l fl,,
•J-. O
'- •- ?;
•'• X e
"i- £ Efl =
.« •—• ^ *< r
=?M|
•-uj-- ^ ** pC
J i'S c SC
x S;o fc1 I
-' !=
"c '-^ ~
>,
,£1
•..r.
3 •
-'
E
•" i- TJ
.t: ° c
£" ^
^
I
-
b
= ^
— 5
"
L
S
^_
0
ITRODUCTI
s
(y
•-H
O
•£
s.
"S
r
O
S
^
j
-D
tC
U
Cfi
—
^
J=
I-
,
;=
f
—•
—
"^
— ^,
--
H
_=
-
^7
--
V .
'=
rmful amounts o
—
_=
^
=
nj
=
i"
i-
CX
—
—
u
.r
'J
_
j
•=
- —
E
s
3
H
rsmg woman, 01
r-
^
T3
14
L^
-C
if:
c
§-
o
>
i<
-3
^
•£
E
i—
"=
-=
p
nj
V
rvous system.
^,
e,
T3
*^* C
^ >-.
••-• ,-
„ — ,
o £^
_•
^ in
? -
J3 '3
-t-. -^-<
1. "
it i
^3 *"
'•-1 7S.
" '5
.C ;,
-
"-
i
[3
c
Jj
7
,-
-.:
•j
_±
— .
~
- j
j
T3
.
^s
i.iltli Dup.irtmeiil
u
HI
:.
-
E
---
7
£
.•;
;-
'-
u
^>
—
: '
•—
•
•-.
--
.^
•-
•"
_^
•-
•~
°P
_
5
7.
~-j f-f
^ _E
^
o •"
>. tc
.
-
-—
D
£
-
—
•r
.1
D
"
r~
r-
_
—
2
-~
•
1.
. .
- —
.ilfction Agency i
:".
—
~"
,'
"~
'_.
2
ki I3vui^ Adniinist
•—
•-
:-
L.
_
•. .
L
-
-
/
L
~
r
-•
~
•"
•-
C
—.
-
E
1-
-
88
-------
89
-------
90
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGES FEES PA ID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
------- |