September 2024
EPA Fish Focus
Group Final Report
EPA 820R24012
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Sharon Frey
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Prepared by
ICF International
1902 Reston Metro Plaza
Reston, VA 20190
-------
Table of Contents
List of Figures ii
List of Tables iv
1. Executive Summary 1
2. Introduction 3
2.1. Participant Eligibility 4
2.2. Participant Recruitment and Screening 4
2.3. Focus Group Discussion Guide Development 4
2.4. Data Collection 4
2.5. Analysis 4
3. Results 5
3.1. Presurvey - Participant Characteristics 5
3.2. Presurvey - Fish Consumption Habits 12
3.3. Survey 12
3.3.1. Images 21
3.3.2. Language 40
4. Preliminary Conclusions 83
4.1. General Conclusions 83
4.1.1. Phrase Selection by Focus Group 85
4.1.2. Phrase Selections in Fish Images in English 97
-------
List of Figures
Figure 1. Results from Poll #1 (A. Part 1, B. Part 2): Which part of the fish do you eat? (Multiple
answers per participant allowed.) An interactive version is available on the Tableau
website 13
Figure 2. Results from Poll #2 (A. Part 1, B. Part 2): Which parts offish are safe to eat? (Multiple
answers per participant allowed.) An interactive version is available on the Tableau
website 18
Figure 3. Fish images with and without QR code (left and right, respectively) 26
Figure 4. Preferred image before reviewing the language options 35
Figure 5. Image with wording differences: "tend to have" vs. "generally have" 42
Figure 6. Results from Poll #4 (A. Part 1, B. Part 2): Which wording do you like better? "tend to
have" or "generally have" (Single answer per participant.) An interactive version is
available on the Tableau website 43
Figure 7. Image with wording differences: "research" vs. "studies" 50
Figure 8. Results from Poll #5 (A. Part 1, B. Part 2): Which wording do you like better? "studies"
or "research" (Single answer per participant.) An interactive version is available on the
Tableau website 51
Figure 9. Image with all wording differences: "tend to have," "generally have," "research," and
"studies" 59
Figure 10. Results from Poll #6 (A. Part 1, B. Part 2): Which is the easiest to understand of all
options: "tend to have," "generally have," "research," "studies" (Single answer per
participant.) An interactive version is available on the Tableau website 60
Figure 11. Results from Poll #7 (A. Part 1, B. Part 2): Which is the hardest to understand: "tend
to have," "generally have," "research," or "studies"? (Single answer per participant.)
An interactive version is available on the Tableau website 67
Figure 12. Image with wording differences: "assessed" vs. "evaluated." 72
Figure 13. Results from Poll #8 (A. Part 1, B. Part 2): Which wording do you like better?
"assessed" or "evaluated" (Single answer per participant.) An interactive version is
available on the Tableau website 73
Figure 14. Image with wording differences: "little" vs. "limited" 78
-------
Figure 15. Results from Poll #9 (A. Part 1, B. Part 2): Which wording do you like better? "little"
or "limited" (Single answer per participant.) An interactive version is available on the
Tableau website 79
Figure 16. Preferred image of Hmong-speaking participants: A) Hmong translation and B)
English translation 97
Figure 17. Preferred image of Cambodian-speaking participants: A) Cambodian translation and
B) English translation 98
Figure 18. Preferred image of Korean-speaking participants: A) Korean translation and B) English
translation 99
Figure 19. Preferred image of Native American English-speaking participants: A) English
translation for Native American audiences 100
Figure 20. Preferred image of Cantonese-speaking participants: A) Cantonese translation and B)
English translation 101
Figure 21. Preferred image of Haitian Creole-speaking participants: A) Haitian Creole translation
and B) English translation 102
Figure 22. Preferred image of Thai-speaking participants: A) Thai translation and B) English
translation 103
Figure 23. Preferred image of Bengali-speaking participants: A) Bengali translation and B)
English translation 104
Figure 24. Preferred image of Amharic-speaking participants: A) Amharic translation and B)
English translation 105
Figure 25. Preferred image of Polish-speaking participants: A) Polish translation and B) English
translation 106
Figure 26. Preferred image of Japanese-speaking participants: A) Japanese translation and B)
English translation 107
Figure 27. Preferred image of Portuguese-speaking participants: A) Portuguese translation and
B) English translation 108
Figure 28. Preferred image of Laotian-speaking participants: A) Laotian translation and B)
English translation 109
Figure 29. Preferred image of Tagalog-speaking participants: A) Tagalog translation and B)
English translation 110
iii
-------
Figure 30. Preferred image of Spanish-speaking participants: A) Spanish translation and B)
English translation Ill
Figure 31. Preferred image of English-speaking participants: A) English translation 112
List of Tables
Table 1. Participant Characteristics (Part 1) 6
Table 2. Participant Characteristics (Part 2) 9
Table 3. ICF identified the following quotations as relevant to Poll #1 14
Table 4. ICF identified the following quotations as relevant to Poll #2 19
Table 5. ICF identified the following quotations as relevant to Poll #3 26
Table 6. ICF identified the following quotations as relevant in determining final image
preference 36
Table 7. ICF identified the following quotations as relevant to Poll #4 44
Table 8. ICF identified the following quotations as relevant to Poll #5 52
Table 9. ICF identified the following quotations as relevant to Poll #6 61
Table 10. ICF identified the following quotations as relevant to Poll #7 68
Table 11. ICF identified the following quotations as relevant to Poll #8 74
Table 12. ICF identified the following quotations as relevant to Poll #9 80
iv
-------
1. Executive Summary
Objective: The United States (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed a set of
images to convey fish parts that should and should not be eaten to reduce possible exposure to
contaminants. The objective of the work described in this report was to pretest the images with
the primary audiences before being shared with entities that develop fish consumption
advisories and/or otherwise communicate this type of information to the public. Pretesting
occurred to ensure these images were understood as intended.
Methods: Three series of focus groups were conducted to test the images across 21 total
languages/cultures. These focus groups provided a platform for participants to share their
experiences and provide feedback about their fish consumption habits, the images, and the
most appropriate messaging used within the images. This report covers the results of the third
series of focus groups, which included 16 languages/cultures (note that 17 focus groups were
held, however, two of them were for English-speaking Native American audiences).* By
conducting focus groups in multiple languages, the EPA was able to test and gain an
understanding of which image was preferrable across a diverse audience by identifying
underlying themes and patterns.
Results: The results for the third series of focus groups varied regarding fish consumption
habits, the fish image, and the most appropriate messaging used within the images.
• Fish consumption habits: Focus groups consistently identified fish fillet and steak as safe
to eat. However, it was also common for focus groups to identify organs, head, skin, and
fat as safe to eat before seeing that the fish image highlights that these parts are often
unsafe due to higher chemical contamination.
• Fish image: The focus groups preferred the fish images that included a QR code leading
to a website with additional information. Focus groups also provided feedback regarding
the font readability, colors, and overall understanding of the image.
• Messaging: Each language/culture had unique feedback regarding the messaging used,
further described in the results and conclusions of this report.
The results for the first and second series of focus groups are available in Appendices S-U.
Next Steps: The EPA has incorporated feedback from each focus group into revised fish image
translations for each respective language/culture. The wording for each language/culture used
in the final images is unique to that language/culture due to the diverse feedback received
from each focus group. This report and the final images will be posted on the EPA website for
use by entities that develop fish consumption advisories and/or otherwise communicate this
type of information to the public. For example, state agencies are one potential audience that
may use these images when developing fish consumption advisories.
1
-------
The EPA will post fish image translations on its website for these 21 languages and cultures:
1. Amharic
2. Arabic*
3. Bengali
4. Cambodian
5. Cantonese
6. Chinese (Mandarin)*
7. English
8. English (Native American audience)
9. French*
10. Haitian Creole
11. Hmong
12. Japanese
13. Korean
14. Laotian
15. Polish
16. Portuguese
17. Russian*
18. Spanish
19. Tagalog
20. Thai
21. Vietnamese*
*Note that the Arabic, Chinese (Mandarin), French, Russian, and Vietnamese-speaking focus
group results are not discussed or presented in this report since these were conducted during
Phases 1 and 2.
2
-------
2. Introduction
The United States (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed a set of images to
convey fish parts that should and should not be eaten to reduce possible exposure to
contaminants. The final images will be made publicly available on the EPA's website for others
to use when developing fish consumption advisories.
Images needed to be pretested with the primary audiences (i.e., individuals who cook and eat
the fish they catch or individuals who receive or buy locally caught fish from others to eat)
before they are shared with the public to ensure these images are understood as intended.
Three series of focus groups were conducted to test the images across 21 total languages or
cultures. These focus groups provided a platform for participants to share their experiences and
provide feedback on the images, allowing for a nuanced, in-depth understanding of their
perceptions and preferences. By conducting focus groups in multiple languages, the EPA was
able to test and gain an understanding of which image was preferrable across a diverse
audience through identifying underlying themes and patterns.
The first series of focus groups were conducted to test the images with English, Spanish, and
Vietnamese speakers, and a report was developed that described the outcomes of that effort
(Appendix U). The images were then revised using the feedback from focus group participants.
The second series of focus groups were conducted to test the revised images with English,
Spanish, Vietnamese, Russian, Chinese (Mandarin), Arabic, Tagalog, and French speakers in
August, October, and November of 2022 and January and June of 2023. The images were again
revised using feedback from these focus groups and a second report was prepared with these
results (Appendices S-T).
The third series of focus groups were conducted with Cambodian, Korean, Hmong, Cantonese,
Haitian Creole, Laotian, Portuguese, Bengali, Japanese, Thai, Polish, Amharic, and Spanish
speakers, and three focus groups were conducted with English speakers, from January through
August of 2024. Of these three English-speaking focus groups, two consisted of Native
Americans. None of the participants in the third English-speaking focus group identified as
Native American. Throughout the report, the two Native American focus groups are referred to
as "Native American English-speaking" and the third focus group is referred to as only "English-
speaking." The results and conclusions of the third series of focus groups are detailed in
Section 3 and Section 4 of this report.
Hindi and Gujarati were originally going to be tested in this third series of focus groups;
however, participant recruitment revealed that Hindi was primarily only used in spoken
language for religious purposes and both Hindi- and Gujarati-speaking individuals were
primarily vegetarian. For this reason, the Hindi and Gujarati focus groups were cancelled, and
Tagalog and Spanish from the second series of focus groups were retested. Tagalog and Spanish
were selected as the languages to retest based on U.S. Census numbers and translation
complexity.
3
-------
2.1. Participant Eligibility
Participants were eligible for the focus groups if their primary language matched the language
in the fish images and they reported catching fish to share with others, buying locally caught
fish to eat, or preparing fish for themselves or others to eat. The participant screener in English
is provided in Appendix A.
2.2. Participant Recruitment and Screening
Focus group participants were recruited by Ebony Marketing Systems (EMS). EMS recruiters
used their database to call potential participants to complete the recruitment process.
Participants who were eligible and interested were invited to participate.
2.3. Focus Group Discussion Guide Development
A semi-structured discussion guide was developed to test (1) images with and without a QR
code, evaluating which of them was preferred by the participants, and (2) images with different
language options to assess the participants' comprehension and receptivity, e.g., what
participants think of the phrases "research has found" vs. "studies have found" when describing
the level of contamination that some fish parts may have. The guide included a combination of
quantitative data collection (i.e., Zoom polls) and qualitative follow-up discussion initiated by
the focus group moderator. The focus group discussion guide in English is provided in
Appendix A. ICF's Institutional Review Board (IRB) reviewed the project's design and materials
and determined the activities conducted during the focus groups were Not Human Subjects
Research (NHSR).
2.4. Data Collection
The focus groups were conducted virtually via Zoom from January through August of 2024.
Participants were able to see each other and the moderator. The moderator used the screen
share feature to show the fish images. These images are provided in the Discussion Guide in
Appendix A. Each focus group lasted approximately 60 minutes.
2.5. Analysis
EMS collected opinions during the focus groups on a matrix organized by image and image
comparisons. Results from Zoom polls were imported into the matrix and matched with the
qualitative follow-up discussion for each image. Responses were further segmented by topic to
organize and summarize the data, noting patterns and trends. ICF used this summary, the poll
data, and the focus groups' transcripts to develop this report.
4
-------
3. Results
3.1. Presurvey - Participant Characteristics
All participants were asked to complete a presurvey by phone about their fishing, fish-eating,
fish-preparation, and shopping habits. Their demographic, pregnancy status or plans, primary
language, and parenting or child caretaking status were also collected. The participants' names
were blinded using letters, and information in parentheses denoted in which focus group they
participated. For example: Participant A (Korean) was part of the Korean-speaking focus group
and Participant B (Cambodian) was part of the Cambodian-speaking focus group.
Table 1 and Table 2 below summarize the participants' demographic background. The
researchers aimed for an even male-to-female ratio. Participants identified themselves as
Ahmara, African American, Alaskan Natives, Asian, Bangladeshi, Bengali, Black/African
American, Black-American, Brazilian, Brazilian (Black), Caucasian, Caucasian-Hispanic, Ethiopian,
Hispanic, Mexican, Native/American Indian, and White. Participants ranged from 18 to 76 years
of age. Fifty-two participants took care of children under age 11, seven were pregnant, and 27
planned to become pregnant in 2024. The focus groups also had differences in education and
income. Twenty-four participants' highest level of education was a high school diploma or
completed General Education Development (GED) and the overwhelming majority had some
college education or held a four-year degree or advanced degree. The Bengali- and English-
speaking groups reported the highest education levels, with all participants holding a four-year
college degree. Moreover, all participants except two individuals from the Cantonese-speaking
group reported an annual income above $20,000 across focus groups.
5
-------
Table 1. Participant Characteristics (Part 1)
Korean
Cambodian
Hmong
Native American 1 Native American 2 Cantonese
Haitian Creole
Thai
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participai
Question
(n = 7)
(n = 6)
(n = 9)
(n = 8)
(n = 7)
(n = 10)
(n = 6)
(n = 8)
Eat Fish
Yes
7 (100%)
6 (100%)
9(100%)
8 (100%)
7 (100%)
10 (100%)
6(100%)
8(100%)
No
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Catch Fish to Eat or Share
Yes
7 (100%)
4 (67%)
9(100%)
7 (88%)
6 (86%)
8 (80%)
3 (50%)
2 (25%)
No
0 (0%)
2 (33%)
0 (0%)
1 (12%)
1 (14%)
2 (20%)
3 (50%)
6 (75%)
Buy Locally Caught Fish
Yes
7 (100%)
6 (100%)
9(100%)
7 (88%)
7 (100%)
10 (100%)
6(100%)
8(100%)
No
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (12%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Prepare Fish
Yes
7 (100%)
4 (67%)
9(100%)
5 (63%)
6 (86%)
10 (100%)
6(100%)
3 (37%)
No
0 (0%)
2 (33%)
0 (0%)
3 (37%)
1 (14%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
5 (63%)
Age
Average
47
49
39
30
35
43
37
55
Range
31-64
34-60
31-71
18-53
26-46
23-55
28-53
36-76
Parent, Guardian. OR Caretaker of Child <11 yrs,
Yes
2 (29%)
1 (17%)
3 (33%)
2 (25%)
1 (14%)
5 (50%)
3 (50%)
0 (0%)
No
5 (71%)
5 (83%)
6 (67%)
6 (75%)
6 (86%)
5 (50%)
3 (50%)
8(100%)
Pregnant
Yes
1 (14%)
0 (0%)
2 (22%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
2 (20%)
1 (17%)
0 (0%)
No
6 (86%)
6 (100%)
7 (78%)
8 (100%)
7 (100%)
8 (80%)
2 (33%)
8(100%)
Not Applicable
0 (0%)
0 (%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
3 (50%)
0 (0%)
Planning for Pregnancy within 1 yr.
Yes
1 (14%)
1 (17%)
2 (22%)
1 (12%)
0 (0%)
2 (20%)
1 (17%)
1 (12%)
No
2 (29%)
5 (83%)
7 (78%)
7 (88%)
7 (100%)
8 (80%)
1 (17%)
7 (88%)
Not Applicable
4 (57%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
4 (67%)
0 (0%)
Gender
Male
3 (43%)
3 (50%)
2 (22%)
6 (75%)
4 (57%)
4 (40%)
3 (50%)
2 (25%)
Female
4 (57%)
3 (50%)
7 (78%)
2 (25%)
3 (43%)
6 (60%)
3 (50%)
6 (75%)
6
-------
Korean
Cambodian
Hmong
Native American 1 Native American 2 Cantonese
Haitian Creole
Thai
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participar
Question
(n = 7)
(n = 6)
(n = 9)
(n = 8)
(n = 7)
(n = 10)
(n = 6)
(n = 8)
Ethnicity
Hispanic/Latino
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (12%)
2 (29%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Not Hispanic/Latino
7 (100%)
6 (100%)
9(100%)
7 (88%)
5 (71%)
10 (100%)
6(100%)
8(100%)
ndtc
Alaskan Natives
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (12.5%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Asian
7 (100%)
6 (100%)
9(100%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
10 (100%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Black/African American
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
6(100%)
8(100%)
Native/American Indian
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
7 (87.5%)
7 (100%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Marital Status
Married
6 (86%)
3 (50%)
7 (78%)
2 (25%)
2 (29%)
5 (50%)
1 (17%)
6 (76%)
Divorced
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (12%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Single
1 (14%)
1 (17%)
1 (11%)
5 (63%)
4 (57%)
5 (50%)
2 (33%)
1 (12%)
Single but living with a partner
0 (0%)
2 (33%)
1 (11%)
0 (0%)
1 (14%)
0 (0%)
3 (50%)
0 (0%)
Widowed
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (12%)
Language Most Comfortable Speaking
English
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
8 (100%)
7 (100%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Korean
7 (100%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
(Cambodian) Khmer, English
0 (0%)
6 (100%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Hmong
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
3 (33%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Hmong and English
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
6 (67%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Chinese/Cantonese
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
10 (100%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
English/Haitian Creole
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
3 (50%)
0 (0%)
Haitian Creole
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
3 (50%)
0 (0%)
Thai
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
8(100%)
Highest Level of Education
Some high school
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
High School or GED
0 (0%)
1 (17%)
0 (0%)
5 (63%)
1 (14%)
0 (0%)
1 (17%)
0 (0%)
Some College
2 (29%)
1 (17%)
4 (44%)
1 (12%)
3 (43%)
5 (50%)
3 (50%)
4 (50%)
Four-Year College Degree or More
5 (71%)
4 (67%)
5 (56%)
2 (25%)
3 (43%)
5 (50%)
2 (33%)
4 (50%)
7
-------
Korean Cambodian Hmong Native American 1 Native American 2 Cantonese Haitian Creole Thai
Participants Participants Participants Participants Participants Participants Participants Participants
Question
(n = 7) (n = 6) (n = 9) (n = 8) (n = 7) (n = 10) (n = 6) (n = 8)
Total Annual Household Income
Under $20,000 per year
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
2(20%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
$20,000 - $44,999 per year
0 (0%)
2 (33%)
0 (0%)
3 (38%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (17%)
1 (12%)
$45,000 - $74,999 per year
5 (71%)
1 (17%)
2 (22%)
1 (12%)
5 (71%)
5 (50%)
4 (67%)
0 (0%)
$50,000 or more per year
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
3 (38%)
$75,000 or more per year
2(29%)
2 (33%)
3 (33%)
2 (25%)
2 (29%)
1 (10%)
1 (17%)
3 (38%)
$100,000 or more per year
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (12%)
N/A
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Prefer not to answer
0 (0%)
1 (17%)
4 (45%)
2 (25%)
0 (0%)
2 (20%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
8
-------
Table 2. Participant Characteristics (Part 2)
Bengali
Amharic
Polish
Japanese
Portuguese
Laotian
Tagalog
Spanish
English
Question
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participai
(n = 8)
(n = 6)
(n = 10)
(n = 10)
(n = 9)
(n = 6)
(n = 10)
(n = 10)
(n = 7)
Eat Fish
Yes
8 (100%)
6(100%)
9(100%)
10 (100%)
9(100%)
6(100%)
10 (100%)
10(100%)
7(100%)
No
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Catch Fish to Eat or Share
Yes
5 (63%)
5 (83%)
5 (56%)
7 (70%)
6 (67%)
5 (83%)
5 (50%)
6 (60%)
4 (57%)
No
3 (37%)
1 (17%)
4 (44%)
3 (30%)
3 (33%)
1 (17%)
5 (50%)
4 (40%)
3 (43%)
Buy Locally Caught Fish
Yes
8 (100%)
6(100%)
7 (78%)
10 (100%)
7 (72%)
5 (83%)
9 (90%)
8 (80%)
6 (86%)
No
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
2 (22%)
0 (0%)
2 (22%)
1 (17%)
1 (10%)
2 (20%)
1 (14%)
Prepare Fish
Yes
8 (100%)
6(100%)
5 (56%)
7 (70%)
6 (67%)
6(100%)
7 (70%)
8 (80%)
4 (57%)
No
Age
Average
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
4 (44%)
3 (30%)
3 (33%)
0 (0%)
3 (30%)
2 (20%)
3 (43%)
39
38
46
53
39
54
39
27
41
Range
27-45
29-55
36-61
38-74
27-58
39-70
19-68
18-39
30-51
Parent, Guardian. OR Caretaker of Child <11 yrs
Yes
5 (63%)
4 (67%)
4 (44%)
3 (30%)
3 (33%)
2 (33%)
6 (60%)
6 (60%)
2 (29%)
No
3 (37%)
2 (33%)
5 (56%)
7 (70%)
6 (67%)
4 (67%)
4 (40%)
4 (40%)
5 (71%)
Pregnant
Yes
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (14%)
No
4 (50%)
4 (67%)
5 (56%)
7 (70%)
9(100%)
6(100%)
10 (100%)
10(100%)
6 (86%)
Not Applicable
4 (50%)
2 (33%)
4 (44%)
3 (30%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Planning for Pregnancy within 1 yr.
Yes
2 (25%)
2 (34%)
3 (33%)
1 (10%)
3 (33%)
1 (17%)
2 (20%)
2 (20%)
2 (29%)
No
2 (25%)
2 (33%)
2 (22%)
6 (60%)
6 (67%)
5 (83%)
8 (80%)
8 (80%)
5 (71%)
Not Applicable
4 (50%)
2 (33%)
4 (44%)
3 (30%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Gender
Male
4 (50%)
3 (50%)
4 (44%)
3 (30%)
1 (11%)
4 (67%)
3 (30%)
3 (30%)
5 (71%)
Female
4 (50%)
3 (50%)
5 (56%)
7 (70%)
8 (89%)
2 (33%)
7 (70%)
7 (70%)
2 (29%)
9
-------
Question
Bengali Amharic Polish Japanese Portuguese Laotian Tagalog Spanish English
Participants Participants Participants Participants Participants Participants Participants Participants Participants
(n = 8)
(n = 6)
O
T—1
II
c
o
T—1
II
c
(n = 9)
(n = 6)
o
T—1
II
c
o
T—1
II
c
(n = 7)
Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino/a
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
8 (89%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
10(100%)
1 (14%)
Not Hispanic or Latino/a
DariA
8 (100%)
6(100%)
9(100%)
10 (100%)
1 (11%)
6(100%)
10 (100%)
0 (0%)
6 (86%)
ndtc
African American
0 (0%)
4 (66%)
0 (0%)
1 (10%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Ahmara
0 (0%)
1 (17%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Asian
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
9 (90%)
0 (0%)
6(100%)
10 (100%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Bangladeshi
1 (12%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Bengali
7 (88%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Black-American
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
2 (29%)
Brazilian
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
7 (78%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Brazilian (Black)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (11%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Caucasian
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
3 (43%)
Caucasian-Hispanic
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (14%)
Ethiopian
0 (0%)
1 (17%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Hispanic
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
10(100%)
1 (14%)
Mexican
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (11%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
White
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
9(100%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Marital Status
Married
7 (88%)
3 (50%)
8 (89%)
7 (70%)
3 (33%)
6(100%)
7 (70%)
4 (40%)
5 (71%)
Divorced
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Single
1 (12%)
3 (50%)
1 (11%)
3 (30%)
6 (67%)
0 (0%)
3 (30%)
6 (60%)
2 (29%)
Single but living with a partner
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Widowed
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
10
-------
Bengali Amharic Polish Japanese Portuguese Laotian Tagalog Spanish English
Participants Participants Participants Participants Participants Participants Participants Participants Participants
Question
(n = 8) (n = 6) (n = 10) (n = 10) (n = 9) (n = 6) (n = 10) (n = 10) (n = 7)
Language Most Comfortable Speaking
Bengali and English
5
63%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0 (0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
Bengali, English, and Hindi
3
37%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0 (0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
Amharic
0
0%)
3
50%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0 (0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
Amharic and English
0
0%)
3
50%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0 (0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
English
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0 (0%)
0
0%)
7
100%)
Polish
0
0%)
0
0%)
7
78%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0 (0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
Polish and English
0
0%)
0
0%)
2
22%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0 (0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
Japanese
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
1
10%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0 (0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
Japanese and English
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
9
90%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0 (0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
Portuguese and English
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
9
100%)
0
0%)
0 (0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
Laotian and English
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
6
100%)
0 (0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
Tagalog and English
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
10 (10%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
Spanish
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0 (0%)
5
50%)
0
0%)
Spanish and English
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0 (0%)
5
50%)
0
0%)
Highest Level of Education
Some high school
0
0%)
1
17%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
1
17%)
0 (0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
High School or GED
0
0%)
1
17%)
0
0%)
2
20%)
2
22%)
0
0%)
3 (30%)
8
80%)
0
0%)
Some College
0
0%)
0
0%)
2
22%)
0
0%)
2
22%)
2
33%)
1 (10%)
1
10%)
0
0%)
Four-Year College Degree or More
8
100%)
4
67%)
7
78%)
8
80%)
5
56%)
3
50%)
6 (60%)
1
10%)
7
100%)
Total Annual Household Income
Under $20,000 per year
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0 (0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
$20,000 - $44,999 per year
0
0%)
2
33%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
3
33%)
1
17%)
2 (20%)
0
0%)
1
14%)
$45,000 - $74,999 per year
3
37%)
3
50%)
3
33%)
1
10%)
1
11%)
0
0%)
0 (0%)
4
40%)
0
0%)
$50,000 or more per year
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0 (0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
$75,000 or more per year
5
63%)
1
17%)
5
56%)
3
30%)
3
33%)
4
67%)
2 (20%)
0
0%)
5
71%)
$100,000 or more per year
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0 (0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
N/A
0
0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
1
10%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
0 (0%)
0
0%)
0
0%)
Prefer not to answer
0
0%)
0
0%)
1
11%)
5
50%)
2
22%)
1
17%)
6 (60%)
6
60%)
1
14%)
11
-------
3.2. Presurvey - Fish Consumption Habits
All focus group participants reported eating fish, and 126 of 136 participants reported buying or
receiving locally caught fish to eat. Additionally, 29 of 136 participants said they do not prepare
(i.e., clean, gut, skin, or fillet) fish before eating it, and 42 of 136 participants said they do not
catch fish to eat or share with others.
3.3. Survey
The focus group participants were asked to answer a series of survey questions. A full list,
including questions asked via Zoom poll and follow-up questions asked by the moderator, are
provided in the Discussion Guide in English in Appendix A. Quotations captured from the focus
groups, as participants responded to the questions, are presented in Appendices B-R.
Poll #1: Which part of the fish do you eat?
Before seeing the images, participants were asked to indicate which fish parts they eat by
selecting options from a poll. The poll #1 results are shown below in Figure 1 and relevant
quotations related to this poll are provided below in Table 3.
Participants reported that the fish parts they ate most often were fillet, fish steak, and roe/fish
eggs. Native American English-, Cantonese-, Bengali-, Amharic-, Polish-, Portuguese-, Tagalog-,
and English-speaking participants did not have comments in this poll, and therefore quotes
from these groups are not included in Table 3. Overall, few participants had seen fish
consumption safety information previously.
12
-------
A. Part 1
B B
Bone H
Skin
Head
Roe/Fish Eggs
Fish Steak
Fillet
I I
¦ Cambodian
¦ Cantonese
¦ Haitian Creole
a Hmong
¦ Korean
~ Native American 1
¦ Native American 2
¦ Thai
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54
Number of Participants (N)
B. Part 2
Bone
Organs
Fins
Head
Skin
Roe/Fish Eggs
Fish Steak
Fillet
¦ Amharic
¦ Bengali
¦ English
n Japanese
¦ Laotian
~ Polish
¦ Portuguese
¦ Spanish
¦ Tagalog
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63
Number of Participants (N)
Figure 1. Results from Poll #1 (A, Part 1, B. Part 2): Which part of the fish do you eat?
(Multiple answers per participant allowed.) An interactive version is available on the Tableau
website.
13
-------
Table 3. ICF identified the following quotations as relevant to Poll #1
Focus Group
Participant3 and Quote
Korean
Participant D: "Yes. 1 have seen an article in the Korean American community, and 1 have
seen it once in the newspaper. [...] 1 think 1 may have heard it at a hearing,
perhaps at the City Hall or some type of governmental related location. 1
currently live in California, and following the Fukushima incident, via
various routes, far away and in California. 1 have come across information
that included other information as well."
Hmong
Participant J: "When 1 was working at Ob clinic, we have instructions for the patients that
talk about how to eat fish and how to protect the baby."
Cambodian
Participant E: "1 never heard or seen any information about this. 1 just know from my
mother that she taught me to cook, and 1 also know from my family
members, but 1 have never heard this kind of information before."
Cambodian
Participant F: "For me, 1 grew up in a big village near the ocean. There was a family that
found blowfish. 1 do not know which parts they ate. The whole family,
mother, and children died after eating it. When 1 was young, 1 just knew
that fish is poisonous, and nowadays in the modern times, they have more
information about which part of the fish is safe and unsafe to eat. 1 just
know that if the fish cooks well, it will not be dangerous to eat."
Haitian Creole
Participant F: "[What part of a fish to eat is] something we naturally know; it's not written
anywhere."
Thai
Participant A: "Okay, I've never seen them put up announcements like that. But 1 choose
[what parts offish to eat] myself..."
Laotian
Participant A: 'Tails are not edible. That's my favorite [the fish eggs]. That's my favorite
part."
Participant C: "Lao people eat all parts. Whether it is fins or stomach, we eat all of them...
1 eat the meat. Meats and tails are able to be deep fried. My wife's sibling
has a restaurant. Whatever [type offish, if] they are deep fried, 1 eat them
all."
Participant E: 'The fish head is the best one. At our home, children are not allowed to eat,
but adults can eat. It is edible. Its eyes are good."
Participant F: "Only the fish meat and flesh. We'll throw away the entrails part. The one
you eat..."
Spanish
Participant B: "[My doctor] only told me that fillet or fish in general is good for lowering
cholesterol."
Participant H: "Only as a fillet."
aThe participants' names were blinded using letters and only a selection of key quotes is
presented in this table, and therefore, does not necessarily reflect the opinions of all
participants.
14
-------
Poll #2: Which parts of fish are safe to eat?
Participants were asked to select which parts of the fish they thought were safe to eat by
selecting them using a poll before seeing the fish images. The poll #2 results are shown below in
Figure 2 and relevant quotations related to this poll are provided below in Table 4.
All focus groups had at least half of participants indicate that fillet and steak were safe to eat.
While an overwhelming majority of participants across all focus groups indicated that fillet is
safe to eat, half or slightly over half of participants from the Amharic- and Bengali-speaking
focus groups indicated that fillet is safe to eat. Similarly, an overwhelming majority of
participants across all focus groups indicated that steak is safe to eat. However, half or slightly
over half of participants from the Bengali-, Korean-, Laotian-, Spanish-, and Thai-speaking focus
groups thought that steak is safe to eat. The rest of this section contains discussion of the focus
group opinions regarding the other parts of the fish (organs, skin, head, fat, bones, tail, fins, fish
roe/eggs).
Nine focus groups leaned towards consensus regarding the other parts of the fish (organs, skin,
head, fat, bones, tail, fins, fish roe/eggs) being safe to eat. Those groups are bulleted below and
minority opinions within those focus groups are included as sub-bullets:
> Native American (Groups 1 and 2), Cantonese, Polish, Cambodian, Bengali, Portuguese,
Tagalog, English
• All of the Native American English-speaking (Group 1) participants indicated roe/fish
eggs were safe to eat, and over half of them thought that the head was safe to eat.
Additionally, over half of the Native American English-speaking (Group 1) participants
said that the skin, fat, and tail were safe to eat.
• Only one Native American English-speaking (Group 2) participant indicated that fins and
organs were safe to eat, and a few Native American English-speaking (Group 1)
participants indicated that the organs were safe to eat. Native American English-
speaking (Group 2) participants did not have comments in this poll, and therefore
quotes from this group are not included in Table 4.
• All Cantonese-speaking participants thought that roe/fish eggs were safe to eat.
• Under half of the Cantonese participants indicated that the fins, organs, bones, and tail
were safe to eat. Cantonese-speaking participants did not have comments in this poll,
and therefore quotes from this group are not included in Table 4.
• An overwhelming majority of Polish-speaking participants indicated that fat, fins, skin,
and roe/fish eggs were safe to eat.
15
-------
• An overwhelming majority of the Cambodian-speaking participants indicated that the
skin, head, eggs, and fat were safe to eat. Additionally, Cambodian-speaking participants
indicated some fish eggs are poisonous.
o One Cambodian-speaking participant indicated they did not know what is safe,
so different fish parts are consumed, because they rely on them for subsistence.
• An overwhelming majority of Bengali-speaking participants thought that roe/fish eggs
were safe to eat.
• Few Bengali-speaking participants indicated that fat, skin, tail, bones, organs, and fins
were safe to eat. Bengali-speaking participants did not have comments in this poll, and
therefore quotes from this group are not included in Table 4.
• An overwhelming majority of Portuguese-speaking participants indicated that roe/fish
eggs were safe to eat.
o Under half of the Portuguese-speaking participants thought that head was safe
to eat, and a few Portuguese-speaking participants indicated that fat, skin, and
bones were safe to eat.
• An overwhelming majority of Tagalog-speaking participants thought that fat was safe to
eat, and over half of Tagalog-speaking participants indicated that skin was safe to eat.
o Half of Tagalog-speaking participants thought that head and roe were safe to
eat, and under half of Tagalog-speaking participants indicated that tails were
safe to eat.
o Few Tagalog-speaking participants thought that fins and organs were safe to eat.
Tagalog-speaking participants did not have comments in this poll, and therefore
quotes from this group are not included in in Table 4.
• An overwhelming majority of English-speaking participants indicated that fat and
roe/fish eggs were safe to eat.
o Over half of English-speaking participants thought that head and skin were safe
to eat.
o Under half of English-speaking participants thought that fins and tails were safe
to eat, and few English-speaking participants though that bones or organs were
safe to eat. English-speaking participants did not have comments in this poll, and
therefore quotes from this group are not included in Table 4.
16
-------
Eight focus groups did not have consensus opinions regarding the other parts of the fish
(organs, skin, head, fat, bones, tail, fins, fish roe/eggs) being safe to eat. Those groups are
bulleted below:
> Amharic, Japanese, Korean, Hmong, Haitian Creole, Thai, Laotian, Spanish
• Few Amharic-speaking participants indicated that head and roe/fish eggs were safe to
eat.
• Few Japanese-speaking participants indicated that bones, fins, tails, and organs were
safe to eat.
• One Korean-speaking participant thought that the tail, bones, organs, skin, head, and
eggs were safe to eat. Korean-speaking participants did not have comments in this poll,
and therefore quotes from this group are not included in Table 4.
• One Hmong-speaking participant thought that the fins, bones, organs, and skin were
safe to eat. Another Hmong-speaking participant indicated that Americans may avoid
the fish head and the tail, but people from other cultures eat them and think most of
the fish is edible.
• A single Haitian Creole-speaking participant thought that fat and roe/fish eggs were safe
to eat. Haitian Creole-speaking participants did not have comments in this poll, and
therefore quotes from this group are not included in Table 4.
• A single Thai-speaking participant thought the tail was safe to eat and under half of
participants thought the fat, head, skin, and roe were safe to eat. Thai-speaking
participants did not have comments in this poll, and therefore quotes from this group
are not included in Table 4.
• Under half of Laotian-speaking participants indicated that roe/fish eggs were safe to eat,
and few Laotian-speaking participants indicated that fat, fins, head, skin, tails, bones,
and organs were safe to eat.
• Under half of Spanish-speaking participants thought that fat was safe to eat, and few
Spanish-speaking participants thought that head, skin, and roe/fish eggs were safe to
eat. Spanish-speaking participants did not have comments in this poll, and therefore
quotes from this group are not included in Table 4.
17
-------
A. Part 1
Bone
Skin
Fat
Head
Roe/Fish Eggs
Fish Steak
Fillet
¦ Cambodian
¦ Cantonese
¦ Haitian Creole
a Hmong
¦ Korean
~ Native American 1
¦ Native American 2
¦ Thai
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56
Number of Participants (N)
B. Part 2
Bone
Organs
Fins
Tail
Head
Skin
Fat
Roe/Fish Eggs
Fish Steak
Fillet
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66
Number of Participants (N)
Figure 2. Results from Poll #2 (A. Part 1, B. Part 2): Which parts offish are safe to eat?
(Multiple answers per participant allowed.) An interactive version is available on the Tableau
website.
Amharic
Bengali
English
Japanese
Laotian
Polish
Portuguese
Spanish
Tagalog
IS
-------
Table 4. ICF identified the following quotations as relevant to Poll #2
Focus Group
Participant3 and Quote
Hmong
Participant A: "I'm seeing that the fish is split into parts that can be eaten or into parts that
Americans may think it can't be eaten. Perhaps Americans see that it can't be
eaten, but for Hmong people or in general other brown races, we think we can eat
fish head and tail. Even though this image says otherwise, for us Hmong people, we
can eat every part of the fish. So 1 think that is confusing. It doesn't quite meet the
purpose because it is confusing. 1 don't' know if other folks here agree or disagree.
Which is why 1 agree that this image is not for Hmong people, but for Americans
only. Sorry. Because for us Hmong people, we do eat all parts of the fish. We can
boil, grill all parts of the fish except we don't eat the bones. There's even some fish
where we do eat the bones."
Cambodian
Participant A: "In the ocean, the big Kompot fish have different species, some kinds are
safe to eat, and some are not safe to eat. We know which one of them [is
safe]." "1 know for sure alligator gar that Cambodians call crocodile fish in
America. This fish looks like a crocodile. Their eggs are poisonous to eat."
Participant F: "We do not know what is safe for us to eat when we can find anything. We
just eat because we have no choice, but now we study and learn more
about the food that is safe and unsafe to eat like in Japan now we can
study more."
Native American
Group 1
Participant H: "1 was told that information by my father."
Participant B: "Well, 1 know there's different kinds of fish. For example, like the blow off
fish, the one that blows up, that's the one that is very dangerous, because
if you don't know how to cut this blow of fish, it has a lot of toxic that's
very hazardous and it's poisonous. You could die if you don't cook it right."
Amharic
Participant C: "1 have heard that eating the head is good." [on where they get information
about fish from] "Forefathers [seniors]."
Participant D: "1 have heard that eating the head is good. If 1 can add, 1 heard about fish
oil. [...] 1 saw it on Facebook post and my husband told me about it from
what he learned."
Polish
Participant G: "1 have an answer. In my city. 1 live in California. In San Francisco, in
Alameda, a few times in San Francisco, and in my city, I've seen posters like
this about which parts of fish and which fish are safe for pregnant women
to eat."
19
-------
Focus Group
Participant3 and Quote
Japanese
Participant F:
"The one that just came to my mind is the blowfish, but if you ask me where
1 saw or heard that, 1 don't know where, but somehow 1 was told that since
1 was a child, that blowfish is dangerous. Of course, if you cook it properly,
it is safe, but 1 have been told since 1 was a child to be careful because it
can be dangerous to eat."
Participant 1:
'1 heard it from a sushi restaurant, in the United States they stopped selling
tresus keenae for a while. 1 love them, but when 1 asked for some, 1 was
told, "Oh, they are gone now. 1 asked why, and was told that they were
out. When 1 asked him why, he replied, "The FDA has taken care of some
kind of bacteria or something in the clams, you know, the bacteria. When
they did random inspections or whatever they did, all imports of mill clams
were banned because they were detected, and so were red clams."
Participant J:
"Television, publications, magazine articles, etc. For example, 1 can't think of
any particular part in particular, but for example, some of them contain
mercury. 1 remember that there have been times when such things have
been taken up as part of the environmental pollution theme."
Portuguese
Participant C:
"When you say safe, is it because of contamination? Because, like, 1 think
it's not safe to eat the bone because you might choke. Or the fin too,
because it can choke. And something that can be bad for your heart.
Things like that. Is it because of contamination or in another sense?"
Laotian
Participant C:
"It depends on where we get the fish from. If the fish is from the fish farm
pond, we will eat in a certain way. If the fish is from a natural source, we
will eat it another way. As there's no right answer and we don't know
where the fish is from, the farm-raised fish has chemicals."
Participant E:
"1 eat all this part, but 1 throw away the head and entrails parts."
aThe participants' names were blinded using letters and only a selection of key quotes is
presented in this table, and therefore, does not necessarily reflect the opinions of all
participants.
20
-------
3.3.1. Images
During each focus group, participants were shown ten images and asked to complete Zoom
polls to capture their preferences regarding the phrases on those images. Follow-up questions
were asked by the moderator to gain an understanding of the rationale behind the participants'
choices. The results per image or group of images are provided below.
3.3.1.1. Fish with QR Code vs. Fish without QR Code
Poll #3: How much do you agree or disagree with this statement? "This image is useful
to me."
After seeing a fish image with a QR code, as well as one without a QR code, participants were
asked whether they found it useful. The fish images are shown below in Figure 3 and relevant
quotations related to poll #3 are provided below in Table 5.
Twelve focus groups generally leaned towards agreement that the image is useful. Those
groups are bulleted below with key commentary:
> Haitian Creole, Korean, Hmong, Polish, Amharic, Thai, Cambodian, Portuguese, Laotian,
Tagalog, Spanish, English
• All Haitian Creole-speaking participants found the image to be useful.
o One Haitian Creole-speaking participant wanted to know the health hazards of
eating fish marked as throw away and suggested that this information be
provided in some way.
o Participants indicated that colors helped determine which parts of the fish were
safe to eat.
o One participant remarked that red, more so than green, demonstrates the fish
parts individuals should avoid.
• All Spanish-speaking participants agreed that the image was useful.
o Spanish-speaking participants indicated that the image taught them that some
fish parts are healthier than others.
o One Spanish-speaking participant remarked that the specific color for each
section is useful.
• An overwhelming majority of the Korean-, Hmong, Polish-, Portuguese-, English-
speaking participants agreed or strongly agreed that the image was useful to them.
o The Korean- and Hmong-speaking participants indicated that the image would
catch their attention, mentioning that the colors were eye-catching and provided
clear messaging (i.e., what to eat vs. throw away).
21
-------
o Although Polish participants thought highly of the image and that the
information contained in the image is useful, they found the design of the image
to be flawed. Several participants specifically pointed to the unappealing color
scheme of the image. One participant even said that the image was "very basic
and just unprofessional."
o Portuguese-speaking participants agreed that information about the levels of
contamination for different parts of the fish was new to them. However, some
Portuguese-speaking participants indicated that the contamination argument
was irrelevant since some parts of the fish are not consumed in their culture.
o One Portuguese-speaking participant thought that the image only pertained to
large, whole fish. Another Portuguese-speaking participant indicated that the
message is more of an opinion than a warning. Another Portuguese-speaking
participant thought the image was informative but not aesthetically pleasing.
o Hmong-speaking participants said the text needed more spacing to make it
easier to read and that the colors were hard to associate with parts of the fish.
These participants suggested adding a chart to clarify the significance of each
color.
o The Korean-speaking focus group thought the image was nice to see, that the
colors were consistent, and the information was well presented. These
participants suggested using brighter colors.
• An overwhelming majority of English-speaking participants agreed that the image was
useful.
o Several English-speaking participants indicated that the different colors make the
diagram easier to understand.
o Several English-speaking participants thought that the image revealed new
information that they had not previously considered.
o One English-speaking participant remarked that the categories are very clear.
o Another English-speaking participant added that the separation of different fish
parts in the diagram is helpful.
• An overwhelming majority of Tagalog-speaking participants agreed that the image was
useful and thought the image highlighted the parts of the fish that are safe to consume.
o Several Tagalog-speaking participants were surprised that skin and fat should be
thrown out since Filipinos typically eat almost all parts of the fish.
22
-------
o One Tagalog-speaking participant thought that brighter colors would be more
captivating.
o Another Tagalog-speaking participant suggested that the image should indicate
why certain fish parts should be thrown away.
• Over half of Amharic-speaking participants agreed that the image was useful.
o Two participants thought the image clearly described the parts of the fish that
are safe to eat, the parts that individuals should refrain from eating, and the
parts that should be thrown away.
o Another participant remarked that the fork and knife signs and the trash can are
visible and even "grabbed my attention."
o However, some participants wondered whether the fish in the image represents
all types of fish and not just bony fish.
o Another participant said they eat fish with caution but do not believe in throwing
away fish.
• Over half of the Laotian-speaking participants agreed that the image was useful.
o Although Laotian-speaking participants thought that the information provided in
the image was helpful, several participants emphasized some of the benefits that
come with eating different parts of the fish.
o One Laotian-speaking participant, who did not find the image useful, indicated
that fish consumption practices often vary by generation and noted that older
Laotians are more likely to eat all parts of the fish.
• Over half of the Thai-speaking participants agreed or strongly agreed that the image was
useful, but the remainder of the participants neither agreed nor disagreed that the
image was useful.
o Participants noted that the color and text size of the image reduced its
effectiveness.
o Two participants suggested larger text size and brighter colors to make the
image more legible and interesting, respectively. Participants suggested using
traffic light colors (e.g., red, yellow, and green) to show which parts of the fish
that are safe to eat.
o Another participant noted that the image might not apply to every species of fish
and stated that certain species of smaller fish are meant to be eaten whole.
23
-------
• Half of the Cambodian-speaking participants agreed that the image was useful to them,
indicating that they have to be careful with fish because of modern-day pollution.
o A Cambodian-speaking participant said the overall challenge is to ensure the fish
is clean enough before consumption for it to be safe.
o Another Cambodian-speaking participant liked the image and thought the
information was useful but indicated that the bones or the head are delicious
and recalled the impression that Americans waste large amounts of food.
o The Cambodian-speaking participants reflected on the information conveyed by
the image and agreed in its importance given the high cost of healthcare in the
United States.
o They also indicated that the text below the fish images clearly conveys the
message on fish parts consumption safety.
o There were concerns about the letters being too small to read when written in
Cambodian and the need for different colors for the fish parts. Cambodian-
speaking participants suggested using green for safe parts, red for the parts that
need to be thrown away, and yellow for the ones that should be avoided.
Five focus groups generally leaned towards neither agreement nor disagreement that the
image is useful. Those groups are bulleted below with key commentary:
> Native American English-speaking (Groups 1 and 2), Cantonese, Bengali, Japanese
• The majority of the Native American English-speaking (Groups 1 and 2) focus group
participants did not agree or disagree with the image. Over half of the Native American
Group 1 focus group remarked on how the image could be viewed as misinformation or
not necessarily correct in certain contexts. For example, situations where the fish parts
labeled "to avoid" are still edible or when individuals have previously consumed the fish
part without noticing adverse effects.
o However, a few Native American English-speaking (Group 1) participants and the
majority of Native American English-speaking (Group 2) participants agreed that
the image is helpful in the educational context and is nicely labeled.
o Native American English-speaking (Group 2) participants had varying opinions
about the usefulness of the image.
o Some Native American English-speaking (Group 2) participants found the image
to be helpful, suggesting that the image should be advertised at a fish market, so
individuals know what parts of the fish are safe to consume and what parts
should be discarded.
24
-------
o Other Native American English-speaking (Group 2) participants noted that the
image was comprehensive, simple to understand, and sparked their interest. In
contrast, one individual questioned the validity of the information, yet wanted to
learn more about the image like other participants.
• Cantonese-speaking participants were equally divided on the usefulness of the image.
o One individual remarked that the picture and wording is understandable.
o However, some Cantonese respondents found the image to be confusing, noting
that the color of the image lacks contrast and suggesting green, yellow, and red
to indicate safe parts and parts to avoid.
o One individual remarked that it is not clear whether the image is telling people
not to eat fish or asking a question.
o Another individual noted the issue of color-blindness and suggested adding
patterns to identify different fish parts.
• Bengali-speaking participants were divided on the usefulness of the image.
o One individual indicated that the classification and color-coding of the image was
useful.
o Another participant noted the importance of the image for pregnant women.
o Some Bengali-speaking participants found the message to be unclear, with one
participant noting that it failed to include a category for fats. Another individual
felt scared by the picture, adding that the image showed the dangers of eating
fish head, which this individual has done for years.
• Over half of Japanese-speaking participants neither agreed nor disagreed that the image
was useful.
o One Japanese-speaking participant thought the image suggested that too many
fish parts, including some of the most delicious parts, should be thrown away.
However, this participant also indicated that the contamination warning was
useful.
o Another Japanese-speaking participant stated that the graphic does not
appropriately capture how Japanese people process and consume fish.
o Only a few Japanese-speaking participants found the image to be useful with one
participant reporting that the graphic was informative and easy to read.
25
-------
Figure 3. Fish images with and without QR code (left and right, respectively).
Table 5. ICF identified the following quotations as relevant to Poll #3
Focus Group
Participant3 and Quote
Korean
Participant C: "Yes [...] It shows which part is safe to eat. It looks great [but] 1 wish it was a
brighter color." [the image could be improved if] Instead of "throw it
away," it says "avoid eating," maybe."
Hmong
Participant B:
"The colors. Because the fish has three colors. Plus, the chart [...] tells you
information of which parts to throw away, to eat or not eat, and the colors
help you see that right away."
Cambodian
Participant A:
"1 think before when we ate the natural fish, 1 did not have a lot of feelings,
but nowadays freshwater fish and saltwater fish are not good because of
pollution. So, we need to be careful when eating fish."
Participant E:
"When 1 saw this image of fish, 1 remembered that if 1 ate according to what
it said, 1 would have to throw away the head, skin, tail, and bones a lot. 1
also remember there is a saying that Americans waste so much food
because I've only seen the video on the Japanese side, where he makes a
fish, he has almost nothing left, and he reduces the waste. However, if we
eat according to this image, there will be a lot of waste that we throw
away and it is a lot."
26
-------
Focus Group
Participant3 and Quote
Native American
Group 1
Participant E: "[l]f this is really being used as an educational piece to teach people what
they can eat and what they can't, 1 do notice that it's very nicely color
coded. Like the parts of the fish that are throw-away are the same, that
blue color, what it's saying is safe to eat is orange, and what they're saying
to avoid eating is that gray color. So if this is just meant for educational
purposes despite whatever we think, it is very clear to get what
information is trying to get out by being able to let you visually see what is
what."
Participant H: "[The image is] a little misinformation. I'm not saying all of it is incorrect,
but with avoid eating it's still in the category of you can eat but you can
choose to throw that away" ... "1 definitely [think it should] say 'avoid
eating, but it's still edible.'"
Native American
Group 2
Participant D: "The way it looks like a pie chart is breaking down, what's good, and what's
bad to eat."
Participant E: "Looking at [the] image, 1 was intrigued. 1 had to keep looking at it to get the
real insight. They have [you learn] that, okay, this is the part that you have
to throw away, this is the part that you have to consume. It's [a]
comprehensive image that is going to intrigue someone to learn more, to
know about it more."
Cantonese
Participant C: "[The image] is too confusing [...] first the orange is part, is it a question or a
statement? It sounds like a question to me. And then the parts that
correspond on top are confusing on what part it is. They should point to
the part they are talking about."
Participant J: "About 1% of the male population are color blind and about 1% of the
women population are color blind as well. So [as] we rely on color, [they]
should also add patterns to identify [the parts of the fish]."
Haitian Creole
Participant C: "Anyway, it's good information because when you're managing your health.
... [Knowing what to throw-away is] really necessary, but if you eat the
parts marked in blue, what can it cause to your health?"
Participant E: "Yes, 1 would change the colors [,..]when you think about the green color
you wouldn't associate it with something that you should avoid. It's
something you shouldn't do. And with the red color, you know to take
precautions not to use that."
Thai
Participant E: "And what is clearly seen is the graphic image that is the component of the
fish. But if it's the letters or the details below. If it were bigger, it might
draw more attention. Or the colors that make it more refreshing,
something like this. Or let the subject look interesting, this one looks like a
fish, the color is a little faded, and that is to make it bigger or clearer and
tell us what we're looking at. By doing so, it would clearly convey what
we're looking at and why."
27
-------
Focus Group
Participant3 and Quote
Bengali
Participant A: "Yes [the visual is useful because it is] pictorial, pictorial is always better I
think, the classification is correct, I mean it's color-wise coded like that. [...]
There may be no health benefits like the skin or fat. [There were] certain
parts to avoid like in the head mercury levels were high when I was
pregnant, I was told not to take more than a certain level of mercury."
Participant D: "It didn't attract me because I was scared when I saw it. I have been eating
fish head for so long, my mother told me to eat fish head, am I going to die
now? I didn't know that. The picture was very good, I mean very clear, but
now I'm very afraid of what I did wrong all these years."
Participant H: "I have a little problem reading Bengali because I am not used to it. [...] I
want to say that I think the diagram of the fish is not very clear because the
bones you are showing are the ribs, that should have been shown a little
more clearly - an outline of the fish. And that's how we are showing it. I
mean by enlarging the fish parts here because those things and looking like
specially the skin area and the fat area. If I have to tell just based on the
picture, the parts needed to be clear and there should have been a
category for fats."
Amharic
Participant B: "Yes, it is clear that it is presented in picture, [even] for people who have
never eaten fish, for example, as it outlines which part is eaten, which part
is not eaten very well, no doubt it is useful as it is clear for everyone."
"...what is used here, I think, is one type offish... there are other types, for
example, boneless fish, how are they seen or treated?"
Participant C: "It gives information very well, I have seen three things in it: It tells us what
parts of a fish are edible, and second, it tells us the parts of a fish that
should not be eaten, the parts we have to refrain from eating, because
their different chemical pollution level is high as studies show there is a
part that it displays that, and again the third, parts that should be
completely thrown away."
Participant D: 'There is the trash can or the eat and avoid eating, the fork and knife signs
at the bottom... those are clear and visible. They grabbed my attention...
and the way the parts of the fish are expressed, although I don't know
each part's names, I say, the image attracted my attention."
Polish
Participant A: "I can say that it is useful to me. Because I learned new things that I didn't
know. I don't know what fish steak are (dzwonek/dzwonko in Polish), but I
agree with the predecessor that the graphic design is poor. Besides, I don't
like how the ones in that top two-line line. Table text is borderless."
Participant E: "I can be the first to say that in general it seems to me that there is a lot of
information and it is useful, but in general, the drawing, colors and how it
is presented, I do not like it at all and it is not very attractive." "Yes, I agree
with everything, it's badly presented, badly done, yes, it looks very basic
and just unprofessional."
28
-------
Focus Group
Participant3 and Quote
Japanese
Participant C: "I think it's easy to read. That's why. I mean, either you throw it away or you
can eat it. So, I think it's a little bit of an equilibrium, and I think we're
going to learn a lot, and we're going to be careful and we're going to be
able to have fish accordingly." So, I am very reassured to see this graph."
Participant G: "I thought that you don't eat like a book. For example, the underbelly under
the part of the steak, If you look at the top here, the top of the steak, it's
broken down into three parts, but we don't process and eat it like this. So
when you say it's kind of like this, it's a little bit off to me; maybe this part
is where the fat may be.... I don't really see it this way."
Participant J: "At first glance, I felt that you were throwing away the most delicious part. I
feel like the organs, the skin, the head, the fat, oh no, that's where it's
good. And generally, you can eat all of them, if you want to, depending on
how you cook them. So I was thinking, like, isn't that a little too much
wasting, really? I mean, it's kind of a waste. Then now, after all I come to
think, after the second and third times I looked at it, I saw that the key
word was "chemical contamination level," so I had to take that into
consideration. If we take into account the fact that toxic substances tend
to accumulate in this area, is there a slight difference? I am beginning to
wonder if there is a beneficial difference."
29
-------
Focus Group
Participant3 and Quote
Portuguese
Participant C: "1 have, for me that question comes back to my previous question, why
would 1 discard bone, tail and fin regardless of someone telling me that
there is contamination, because 1 think the problem, even if there was no
contamination, is different. You can't eat bone, tail and fin, it's not even
edible, you can't digest it, it's not tasty. And it's not safe either. It's not
safe in this sense of swallowing and such. And about what is disposable,
like, a lot of people eat skin, a lot of people eat heads, a lot of people eat
fat, so, 1 would think a lot more about questioning whether this
information is real or not, why avoid consuming bones, tails and fin,
because you think so, for reasons of biochemistry, contamination."
Participant E: "[it is useful] to know in terms of what to avoid consuming, because
naturally 1 thought it was okay, 1 knew that some things should be
discarded and others should be avoided. As for the levels, 1 didn't know,
this is still new to me, the contamination levels."
Participant E: "Ok. How much does that go for all types offish? 1 think it's a matter of
logic." "It's very clear. Okay. 1 just think it's not like that visually, in terms of
aesthetics, 1 don't think it's the most attractive image. Okay. IT's very
informative."
Participant F: "1 think it's relevant, but 1 would only think about this fish if it were a really
whole, big fish. If it were another type of fish, 1 wouldn't even consider this
image. We eat raw astyanax fish in Parana, from the water, understand?"
Participant 1: "But, [Participant E], if you pay attention, they're saying on the chemical
side, it's the fish that come from the polluted sea, practically, right? And if
it's that fresh river with pure water, this chemical contamination isn't as
much there in the fish. Maybe it's more of a point of view, right?"
Laotian
Participant C: "Mostly, it's about generation. 1 am 50 years old, and everybody here might
be in the same range, the elders. Our kids might not eat the head part, but
1 still eat it as my parents taught me so, and I'm used to it. For the head
part, if you don't know, it might be stuck in your throat. If we're wealthy,
we will only buy the meat part to eat. But just like [Participant E]
mentioned earlier, it is reasonable. Fish oil is good for your bones. Entrails
have a lot of proteins if you make it clean first, but there's no right or
wrong. They showed us the standard principle, which part to keep or which
part to throw away. But for me, 1 eat them all. 1 only don't eat bones. If it's
Bluegill, 1 eat the bones."
Participant F: "What they show us is helpful. We know which part is edible and which part
is not. Everybody is different, everybody has different tastes. What [other
participants have claimed] is right, some people do not throw away
anything; they eat everything. The information provided is good. They
shared what should be eaten and what shouldn't."
30
-------
Focus Group
Participant3 and Quote
Tagalog
Participant A: "As [Participant B] mentioned, 1 didn't know before that not all fish skin is
safe to eat. It seems that not all fish skins can be consumed, depending on
the type offish. This information is very helpful to me."
Participant B: "For me, this is surprising since most people eat fish skin. As Filipinos, we
often eat fish with the skin on, but these images suggest that the skin
should be discarded."
Participant D: "If the colors were brighter, it would catch more attention."
Participant E: "1 liked the diagram because it makes it relatively easy to determine what
should be eaten and what shouldn't be eaten."
Participant F: "It is useful because, first and foremost, 1 didn't know that the fat needs to
be discarded. This information highlights which parts should be eaten and
which are not advisable to consume."
Participant G: 'The perception is that as Filipinos, we eat almost all parts of the fish, so
the fat is a favorite among Filipinos. That's why 1 was surprised that it
actually needs to be thrown away."
Participant G: "What 1 would say is that what's missing from the picture is the reason why
it needs to be thrown away. 1 didn't read, or maybe the reason why it
should be avoided or not eaten wasn't included."
Spanish
Participant F: "We haven't seen it, just as they are putting it here. The good parts, 1
haven't seen it [...] because let's say I've seen like videos pretty much of
how it's cleaned or how fish is made [...] but not like this specifically or as
the image is showing it."
Participant H: "Maybe the image shows different parts of the fish that we didn't know
they had, or that they can be eaten or that they can't be eaten."
Participant H: "[1 like] that each section corresponds to the color of the information."
Participant J: "The image is communicating] which [part] is healthier. And which [part] to
avoid."
31
-------
Focus Group
Participant3 and Quote
English
Participant B:
"1 think the color has already said so much about the image here. So, from
the color specifications, we can clearly see what the image is saying."
Participant C:
"The image clearly stated parts of the fish that can be highly contaminated
with chemical and that really drove down some information that 1 really
didn't think about previously."
Participant D:
"1 think the color coating is helpful. That you have the green or whatever
color that is for throwaway, the orange for eat and the gray for avoid. 1
think that helps make it very clear and understandable diagram."
Participant E:
"Oh, 1 think it's very clear. 1 like the categories. Throw away, eat, avoid
eating, and it's very clear on the bottom."
Participant F:
"Yeah, 1 was little surprised about the head, like in the fish, this is the most
sacred part of the fish is the cheeks. Cheeks is part of the head, then 1
know a lot of people who eat it."
Participant G:
"1 like how it's spread out so that you can out, it's labeled very clearly in the
fish, and it's spread out into different parts rather than having the fish all
as one piece. This one has it kind of spread out and it's easy to follow the
chart."
aThe participants' names were blinded using letters and only a selection of key quotes is
presented in this table, and therefore, does not necessarily reflect the opinions of all
participants.
32
-------
3.3.1.2. Image - Final Preference
The participants were shown the images with and without a QR code, side by side. The
preferred image before reviewing the language option is shown below in Figure 4 and relevant
quotations related to determining the final image preference are provided below in Table 6.
Generally, across focus groups, an overwhelming majority of participants preferred the image
with the QR code, as it provided faster access to additional information from anywhere. Key
pieces of feedback collected from participants are bulleted below:
• Cambodian-speaking participants indicated that spacing edits were needed for the
image with QR code to make it easier to see.
• A Native American English-speaking (NA1) participant indicated that the QR code would
translate well for the newer generations.
• Cantonese participants remarked on the conveniency and added information offered
from the image with the QR code.
• Haitian Creole-speaking participants remarked that the QR code is useful; however, a
couple participants indicated they did not notice the QR code. The Haitian Creole-
speaking participants agreed that there should be a note for people to scan for more
information.
• A Thai-speaking participant indicated that the image with the QR code is more modern
and can be linked to social media.
• A Bengali-speaking participant remarked that the QR code and image may be redundant
and suggested enlarging the picture and removing the QR code.
• Amharic-speaking participants thought the image with the QR code was useful. One
Amharic-speaking participant remarked that the information was useful even if the
source of the information is not known. Another Amharic-speaking participant thought
that the QR code indicates the fish has passed government safety standards.
• Several Polish-speaking participants indicated that the image with the QR code was
useful.
• One Polish-speaking participant remarked that having the QR code in their browser
history is particularly helpful since they can go back and easily revisit the information
provided in the code. Another participant indicated that they are cautious about
unknown QR codes, however, they would trust this QR code since it is part of this image.
• An overwhelming majority of Japanese-speaking participants preferred the image with
the QR code. One Japanese-speaking participant thought the QR code made them think
more carefully about fish consumption. In contrast, one Japanese-speaking participant
33
-------
was uncertain about the contents of the QR code and indicated they would never scan
it.
• Even though over half of Portuguese-speaking participants voted for the image with the
QR code, Portuguese-speaking participants did not think the QR code contained any
additional information about fish consumption that was not already communicated in
the image.
• Laotian-speaking participants were split over the inclusion of the QR code in the image.
Laotian-speaking participants did not think the QR code provided any additional
information. One Laotian-speaking participant indicated that they did not know how to
use the QR code.
• Although all Tagalog-speaking participants selected the image with the QR code,
participants agreed that the presence of the QR code did not change the value of the
information contained within the image. One Tagalog-speaking participant thought that
the QR code is more likely to catch people's attention and save them time with easier
access to information. Another Tagalog-speaking participant indicated that the image
does not appear trustworthy without the QR code.
• Although the overwhelming majority of Spanish-speaking participants voted for the
image with the QR code, Spanish-speaking participants thought the QR code did not
contain any additional information that was not already in the image. However, one
Spanish-speaking participant added that they found more information with the QR code.
Another Spanish-speaking participant indicated that the QR code may provide additional
information about the content of the image.
• Although an overwhelming majority of English-speaking participants selected the image
with the QR code, participants had mixed opinions about the value of the QR code.
Several English-speaking participants indicated that the image does not need both the
QR code and the website link. One English-speaking participant added that some people
might see the QR code first. Another English-speaking participant indicated that the QR
code gives them the ability to do their own research as a consumer and is easier to
access than the website. Another English-speaking participant added that the use of the
QR code depends on one's age.
34
-------
EATING FISH IS HEALTHY
WHEN YOU EAT THE RIGHT PARTS!
v y
^ THROW AWAY
These parts tend to have higher
levels of chemical
contamination.
HEAT
These parts tend to have lower
levels of chemical
contamination.
AVOID EATING
Fewstudies have assessed the
amount of chemical
contamination of these parts.
ORGANS SKIN
HEAD FAT
V
FILLET
FISH STEAK
BONES TAIL
FINS
y
Choose fish wisely by checking local fish advisories
for information on which fish are safe to eat, how
often to eat them, and the amount to eat.
www.localfishadvisory.gov Image Language 1
Figure 4. Preferred image before reviewing the language options.
35
-------
Table 6. ICF identified the following quotations as relevant in determining final image
preference
Focus Group
Participant3 and Quote
Hmong
Participant H: [Referring to adding QR code and if it changes the meaning of the image]
"Yes it does, because QR code is more modern and more used. Folks who
are young will probably see the QR code first with their phone camera
before viewing the image. Young people would likely use their phone to
use the QR code and would probably more attracted to that."
Korean
Participant G: "1 think 1 would trust it more."
Cambodian
Participant D: "1 can see this image without the QR code looks more balanced than with
QR code. But like everyone said QR code is used everywhere now so having
the QR code is good. 1 want to say that 1 tried to scan the QR code in this
image."
Native American
Group 1
Participant E: "[The image] still has the website at the bottom, so 1 still feel like 1 could go
and see what species offish is more safe to eat, but maybe with the newer
generation, the QR code would be nicer just because people like to put
their phones at stuff. But overall, 1 still feel like 1 can get further
information."
Native American
Group 2
Participant D: "[The QR code is] very useful. It's like a shortcut. People on the go [can
scan] with your phone on the go." "They can put it in Spanish too."
Cantonese
Participant A: "1 noticed the QR code, but there are a lot of things with QR codes. If
someone wants to save the picture, they can take a picture and get info
from the QR code. 1 would choose the one with [the] QR code. If 1 want
more information, 1 would just scan the QR code, so the picture doesn't
need to have that much (text) next to it."
Haitian Creole
Participant B: "And when 1 see other flyers and posters like that and they have QR codes
in them, in front of the QR code, next to the QR code, they always say,
'scan this for more information.' So, if 1 saw the QR code with that note to
scan for more information, it would do something more for me, you
understand ?"
Participant F: "[...] the [QR] code plays a role if we have it. Like when we have a website,
like if we put information like if people need that information, they can just
take the QR code, take their phone, scan it, and get the information. But
without the [QR] code, they won't get the information."
Thai
Participant A: "QR code is the best channel [to spread information]."
Participant E: "... you can link [the QR code] to social media more with the QR code."
Bengali
Participant B: "1 don't think the actual image with the picture is for general awareness
because there is no detail in the picture. Anyone who wants to get the
details can go to the website and see it with the QR code. It doesn't make a
difference. If 1 am really serious 1 will also check the website, but can also
check the QR code. Two pieces of information may be redundant. Instead,
the picture can be enlarged a bit more without the QR code."
36
-------
Focus Group
Participant3 and Quote
Amharic
Participant C: "1 think, what gets a QR code is one that passes that safety standards and
has been approved by the operator government agency, and 1 don't think
that the fish that doesn't have a QR code could be taken to the market...
and it seems to me that the QR code carries a message that would mean
the fish is qualified for market in terms of health and environment."
Participant E: "It gives detailed information... for example, the diagram puts it generally...
first, there is no time limit ..in the details through a QR code, however, it
could be specified when to eat and, as fish types are varied, the website
gives us details about the fish that are found in the area, and having the QR
code is useful, even we don't know who gave us this information. 1 think it
changes the meaning of the image."
Polish
Participant A: "1 agree that QR code, helps, especially that if 1 typed it into my phone 1
would have it in the history in the browser and 1 could go back to it, but 1
would not scan some stranger code on a street pole." "For me, it is very
important that there is a dot. Gov means that the source of this
information is supposedly a government institution. For me, it is, it
increases the value of this whole leaflet."
Participant B: "1 think it's a bit all the same, but if this code is supposed to lead to some
extended information, it's better if it is there than if it doesn't exist,
although recently I've read about being careful how to scan a QR code,
because they can be fake and lead to various strange links. So 1, for
example, probably wouldn't have scanned a completely random code. But
if it is here and it is supposed to be useful to someone that's good."
Japanese
Participant E: "I've been thinking about how 1 have been. 1 think that the way we look at
fish as a meal will be a little more careful after all. 1 think I'm going to be a
little more careful about how safe fish is next to the QR code, because I'm
not sure how safe it is. 1 have been eating it, but how should 1 eat it? It says
to choose wisely, so 1 guess. 1 thought that people would be reminded of
the fact that they used to eat food without thinking about it, but now they
need to be a little more careful, and they would check the QR code to find
out what it is."
Participant J: "Personally, unless it's something really bad, 1 just, if there's a quick picture
like this and there's a QR code on it, 1 would never scan it, because 1 don't
know what's in it. In the sense that even if there were, they would ignore it
anyway, so it would be the same as if there were no such thing, because I'll
ignore it."
Portuguese
Participant H: "It's a bit of that, because the information with QR code or not, the
consumption information, being healthy is still there."
Laotian
Participant C: "If we scan this principle, there will be a document. They will show what is
edible and what is prohibited. That's what 1 think. Having QR code and no
QR code might be one has a document and the other doesn't."
Participant F: "QR code is what we scan and it will show this picture or this information. 1
don't really know that it can be scanned. 1 don't know how to use it."
37
-------
Focus Group
Participant3 and Quote
Tagalog
Participant D: "When 1 read the words, they caught my attention. When 1 look at the
picture, my eyes are drawn to what should be discarded and what should
be eaten. It gives me direction and information that 1 can use when eating
fish, so it's okay with me to have just the words because they are easy to
understand."
Participant G: "What 1 noticed is that without a QR code, it might not be as noticeable or
as likely to catch attention. Nowadays, everything involves technology, so
when people see information, there's often a QR code because the current
generation is used to that. Without a QR code, it takes more time to read
everything instead of just scanning it with a phone."
Participant 1: "For me, it doesn't look legit without a QR code, so someone who sees this
might think it's not effective, almost like it's just a joke."
Participant 1: "[The image] changed in terms of the impression it gives me. Information-
wise, it's the same, but the impact is different."
Spanish
Participant D: "[1 prefer the image with the QR code] because we found more
information."
Participant F: "Yes, [...] most use the QR code. 1 wouldn't really use the code because I'm
already reading what it has, let's say what's important in the information, 1
wouldn't take out my phone and be, why am 1 going to put the code if the
information is already there... All the information is basically on the poster,
so 1 don't need to take out the phone to put the code anymore. Not
anymore."
Participant H: "There is a QR code [...] maybe it's to provide more information about the
image and the content of the image."
38
-------
Focus Group
Participant3 and Quote
English
Participant A: "I think, yeah, you could probably get, it's probably just going to take you
directly to the website, but I think this is going to be more of an age-
related thing because depending on your age you may be more likely to
just hit that QR code."
Participant B: "I think if it's still the same information, I wouldn't think it's necessary to
have the QR code and the website here as well. Okay. It's just like I'm
saying you discarded the QR code just to redirect it to the same website.
So if the websites going to be here then the QR code doesn't need to be
here so you don't need to provide [both]."
Participant C: "Well, I really don't think we should have this or that. I am okay with the
two of them there... I would personally go for the QR code, I wouldn't see
the website link. I'll just go straight for the QR code. Some people might
just be techy and that's what will catch their eye easier like that."
Participant E: "What does the QR code provide? [...] I would feel more confident if there
was a QR code because I would like to do my own research as a
consumer." "I think [removing the QR code is] misleading because if I want
more information I would like to scan the QR code and see what it would
give me. [...] I would feel more confident if there was a QR code because I
would like to do my own research as a consumer."
Participant E: "I would say I prefer [the QR code] because we get so much information on
a daily basis that I'm not going to physically go in and type into my phone,
there's so many QR codes that I deal with, I just scan and go directly to the
website. It makes it easier for me, more accessible, I just scan and click."
Participant F: "I don't see what it brings to the image or without QR code. The picture is
for me is the same and there is the same explanation of what to eat and
what to throw or what to avoid in a fish."
aThe participants' names were blinded using letters and only a selection of key quotes is
presented in this table, and therefore, does not necessarily reflect the opinions of all
participants.
39
-------
3.3.2. Language
3.3.2.1. Comparison of Wording - Parts tend to have vs. generally have
Poll #4: Which wording do you like better? "tend to have" or "generally have"
Participants were shown two options for wording, "These parts tend to have..." and "These
parts generally have...." so they could choose which they preferred and elaborate on why. See
Figure 5 below for the entire phrasing options. The poll #4 results are shown below in Figure 6
and relevant quotations related to this poll are provided below in Table 7.
Eleven focus groups generally favored the "generally have" option. Those groups are bulleted
below with key commentary:
> Cambodian, Haitian Creole, Korean, Cantonese, Native American English (Groups 1 and 2),
Thai, Japanese, Amharic, Tagalog, Spanish
• All Cambodian- and Haitian Creole-speaking participants and an overwhelming majority
of Korean-, Cantonese-, Tagalog-, and Spanish-speaking participants, preferred the
"generally have" language because it was clearer and easier to understand.
o One Cantonese participant indicated that Cantonese speakers use "generally
have" more often and another Cantonese-speaking participant noted that
"generally have" is more objective than "tend to have."
o However, one Tagalog-speaking participant added that the phrase "tend to
have" enables them to decide for themselves what fish parts are safe to
consume for a particular fish.
o One Spanish-speaking participant added that "generally have" assures that
something is true, whereas "tend to have" implies a feeling of doubt.
• The majority of the Native American English-speaking (Groups 1 and 2) selected the
"generally have" option.
o However, the Native American English-speaking (Group 1) participants did not
believe either wording options to be stronger or much different from the other.
o Native American English-speaking (Group 2) participants were concerned about
the wording, thinking that either option meant that all fish parts were
contaminated, suggesting the terminology was unclear and could be
misunderstood.
40
-------
• Over half of Thai- and Japanese-speaking participants selected the "generally have"
option.
o Thai-speaking participants expressed confusion over both options and suggested
that both phrases should be changed. Two participants remarked that an
example numerical contamination value would be useful to clarify both wording
options.
• Two Japanese-speaking participants indicated that "generally have" is more reliable
than "tend to have." Another Japanese-speaking participant remarked that "generally
have" is easier to understand. Another participant suggested the phrase "generally
speaking" would be easier to understand than "generally have."
• Most Amharic-speaking participants selected the "generally have" option, however,
these participants indicated that their choice was mainly driven by the ambiguity of the
phrase "tend to have."
o One Amharic-speaking participant remarked that the phrase "tend to have"
indicates that something is not definite whereas the phrase "generally have"
means that something is fully proven.
Six focus groups generally favored the "tend to have" option. Those groups are bulleted below
with key commentary:
> Polish, Bengali, Hmong, Portuguese, Laotian, English
• Over half of Polish-, Bengali-, Portuguese-, and English-speaking participants preferred
the "tend to have" option.
o One Polish-speaking participant remarked that "tend to have" is a more reliable
term, whereas "generally have" is more uncertain and unprofessional. Another
participant shared this opinion, noting that "generally have" is too colloquial.
Another Polish-speaking participant indicated that "tend to have" is one word
and "generally have" is two words in Polish and preferred the shorter phrase
"tend to have."
o There was no commentary from the Bengali-speaking participants regarding this
selection after probing by the moderator.
o One Portuguese-speaking participant indicated that "tend" evokes a feeling of
doubt.
41
-------
o One English-speaking participant remarked that "tend to" is an action word.
Another English-speaking participant added that "tend to" has fewer syllables
and is easier to understand. One English-speaking participant added that
"generally have" means that something has been confirmed and may be more
scientifically sound whereas "tend to" means that something is not certain.
Another English-speaking participant indicated that "generally" is more relatable.
• Hmong-speaking participants had difficulty choosing one of the options. Over half of
these participants chose the "tend to have" option indicating it had fewer words.
o Hmong-speaking participants commented that the message in both options was
verbose.
• An overwhelming majority of Laotian-speaking participants selected the "tend to have"
option.
o One Laotian-speaking participant thought that "tend to have" has a deeper
meaning.
EATING FISH IS HEALTHY
WHEN YOU EAT THE RIGHT PARTS!
THROW AWAY
ORGANS SKIN
HEAD FAT
II'
FILLET
FISH STEAK
AVOID EATING
Few studies have
amount of chemical contamination
of these parts.
BONES TAIL
FINS
Choose fish wisely by checking local fish
advisories for information on which fish are safe to
eat, how often to eat them, and the amount to eat.
www.localfishadvisory.gov
Image: Language 1
EATING FISH IS HEALTHY
WHEN YOU EAT THE RIGHT PARTS!
/
^ THROW AWAY
J] EAT
Q4J AVOID EATING
These parts generally have higher
levels of chemical contamination.
These parts generally have lower
levels of chemical contamination.
Few studies have assessed the
amount of chemical contamination
of these parts.
ORGANS SKIN
FILLET
BONES TAIL
HEAD FAT
FISH STEAK
FINS
V
/
Choose fish wisely by checking local fish
advisories for information on which fish are safe to
eat, how often to eat them, and the amount to eat.
www.localfishadvisory.gov
Image Language 2
Figure 5. Image with wording differences: "tend to have" vs. "generally have"
42
-------
A. Part 1
No preference
¦ Cambodian
¦ Cantonese
¦ Haitian Creole
a Hmong
¦ Korean
~ Native American 1
¦ Native American 2
¦ Thai
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 4244
Number of Participants (N)
B. Part 2
No preference
¦ Amharic
¦ Bengali
¦ English
n Japanese
¦ Laotian
~ Polish
¦ Portuguese
¦ Spanish
¦ Tagalog
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54
Number of Participants (N)
Figure 6. Results from Poll #4 (A. Part 1, B. Part 2): Which wording do you like better? "tend
to have" or "generally have" (Single answer per participant.) An interactive version is
available on the Tableau website.
43
-------
Table 7. ICF identified the following quotations as relevant to Poll #4
Focus Group
Participant51 and Quote
Korean
Participant D: [on the use of 'generally'] "There is a change in the nuance in the section
that says to 'eat'. There seems to be more certainty in having a lower level
of chemical contamination. [...] The phrase 'tend to', 1 think, is too much of
a vague expression. We do not know the percentage - not even a broad
range, so 1 think removing that and using 'generally' would make the best
expression."
Hmong
Participant B: [On generally vs. tend to] "Perhaps the ['tend to have'] image is better
because there are less words and [it is] easier to understand than [the
'generally have'] image. Because it seems lengthy."
Cambodian
Participant B: "When we hear the word 'tend to have' [it is] not clear. To be clear and sure
the word 'generally have' is better."
Native American
Group 1
Participant H: "1 did choose generally just because it's different wording than tend. It
seems generally just seems a lot longer to say than tend sounds more
persuasive, but really either way, if another person is reading tend or
generally in that, they're still going to think the same thing."
Native American
Group 2
Participant G: "I'd also like to put it in terms for a person who doesn't understand the
terminology, how would he be able to decipher the term 'higher levels of
chemical contamination'? Because let's say you do not have that level of
understanding [...] put it into simpler terms, l[t] would [be] better."
Cantonese
Participant B: "Cantonese people when they speak, they don't use the first phrase 'tend to
have.' The second one, 'generally have' is more often used."
Haitian Creole
Participant C: "Let's remove the tend, because they might not be familiar with the word
tend."
Thai
Participant E: "[Tend to have] seems unclear to me. I'm not sure what information that
sentence is trying to convey to us, whether it's about a positive or negative
tendency in meaning or about high or low contamination levels. But if we
change 'tendency' to 'probability,' it might be clearer. Or perhaps there's
another word that could be used instead."
Participant G: "[Agreeing with Participant C that the wording should be changed to] "like a
contamination rate of 9% or 3%. I'm just giving examples because when
we're interested, we also pay attention to numbers. But in this image,
there are no numbers. If 1 look at something, sometimes 1 want to see
numbers, like a phone number or something. It would make it clearer. But 1
understand this one. However, in image viewing, it's interesting to have
numbers along with colors."
44
-------
Focus Group
Participant51 and Quote
Amharic
Participant B: 'This one [generally] means it is fully, 100% proven, but the other one, 'tend
to have1 means... 1 mean... it doesn't seem definite to me [...] For example,
'tend to' doesn't imply that they totally contain chemicals, but this one
[generally] the information it gives us is the chemical is high... it means it is
confirmed that they have high levels of chemicals."
Participant D: "1 now understood the difference... if it says 'tend to' it means that it is not
yet at a certain stage... it's just approaching, that is what 1 think. If it says
they have high level of chemical pollution, it might mean that is confirmed,
but the other one [tend] implies that it is in a process, that's what it gives
to me."
Participant E: 'The word 'tend to' is an ambiguous word that people may not clearly
understand. For high or low, people can guess the level by themselves as
opposed to using the term 'tend to.'"
Polish
Participant B: 'The second one, the phrase that they generally have in my opinion sounds
more colloquial. And that's why 1 like it less. It should not be used
colloquial language. It should be very formal."
Participant G: "tend to have there is one word, generally have there are two words (in
Polish), so for me it's just shorter. Shorter sentence."
Participant H: "For me, "tend to have" is more reliable. "Generally have" is a bit of a
wobbly statement that is unprofessional and basically gives me less
confidence that this is the way to go."
Japanese
Participant G: "1 think 'generally' is more reliable."
Participant 1: "It is a bit easier to understand to say; 'It's low or high.' Stating There is a
tend to have' is very cautious. 1 feel like I'm taking an academically prudent
position. So, 1 understand. However, if the message is to be directed to the
general public, then 'It's high. It's low.' 1 thought it would be easier to
understand if 1 added 'generally speaking."
Portuguese
Participant H: "It gives me a feeling of doubt, right? Tends, yes."
Laotian
Participant C: 'Tends to have' is slightly deeper. 1 prefer that word."
Tagalog
Participant C: "1 chose 'generally have' because it's easier to understand, and the image
provides awareness or knowledge to people."
Participant D: "1 chose 'generally have' because it is easier for me to understand compared
to 'tends to have.'"
Participant H: "1 prefer 'tends to have'] Because that way, you can determine what is
suitable and what is not for a certain fish."
45
-------
Focus Group
Participant51 and Quote
Spanish
Participant E: "Yes, ['generally has'] is basically explaining that the green part, well, it's
basically garbage. And the other, if it is for eating, that it is passable for
eating. It is more understandable."
Participant 1: "Because 'generally' is already assuring that it is true and they 'tend ' is still
like doubting whether yes or no. Well, that's how 1 understand it [...] 'tend'
is like it may be yes or it may be no."
English
Participant B: "1 think 1 choose 'tends to' because tends to is a verb, that's an action word.
So it still impresses this tend to because people still eat this parts and all
that. So 'tend to' definitely means it's an action word, not 'generally.'
'Generally' means it has chemicals and 80% of people that eat this fish,
they've had some kind of complications or health challenges that are
somehow very, very critical. So 1 prefer using the word 'tends to.'"
Participant C: "So for me, just hearing 'generally' means it's been confirmed maybe
scientifically. [...] It's no longer, may, may not 'tend to' was a bit soft but
generally meant or means right now it means this is what it is. That's how it
sounded to me right now."
Participant C: "When you say this part 'tend to,' it sounds like they tend to work, they
might not really or it might not be in all the case, right? But it 'tends to,'
but right now you're saying this part 'generally have' and so it is actually a
confirm theme. It's 'generally' just like the word goes with who knows all
the fish. 1 just hope it's not the same with my catfish...generally sounds a
little bit more, 1 guess serious, there's more urgency if you will, or there's
more scientific behind it."
Participant D: "1 mean with these kind of signs that could be viewed by different people all
over the world, 1 think simpler is better and 'tend to' is a one syllable word
and 'generally' is a four-syllable word. So it just makes it easier to read and
easier to understand from people. 1 think that it flows a little bit better
also."
Participant G: "The only reason 1 choose 'generally' is 1 use that word more frequently.
That's the one 1 relate to better or like."
aThe participants' names were blinded using letters and only a selection of key quotes is
presented in this table, and therefore, does not necessarily reflect the opinions of all
participants.
46
-------
3.3.2.2. Comparison of Wording - research vs. studies
Poll #5: Which wording do you like better? "research" or "studies"
Participants were shown two wording options, "Generally, research hasfound..." and
"Generally, studies have found..." so they could choose which option they preferred and
elaborate on why. See Figure 7 below for the entire phrasing options. The poll #5 results are
shown below in Figure 8 and relevant quotations related to this poll are provided below in
Table 8.
Eight focus groups generally preferred the "Generally, studies have found..." option. These
groups are bulleted below with key commentary:
> Korean, Amharic, Polish, Native American English (Group 1), Haitian Creole, Bengali,
Portuguese, English
• All Korean-speaking participants preferred the "studies" option because it sounded
more authoritative.
• All Amharic-speaking participants selected the "studies" option; however, participants
noted the similarity of both "research" and "studies."
• One Amharic-speaking participant specifically indicated that research means "to
examine or to study."
• An overwhelming majority of Polish-speaking participants preferred the "studies"
option.
o One Polish-speaking participant indicated that "studies" is more scientific, and
the use of this word increases trust in the information presented. Another
Polish-speaking participant remarked that "studies" is more credible and
suggested that there should be a reference or QR code to validate which studies
were used. Another Polish-speaking participant even suggested that "research"
is influenced by the entity paying the researcher.
• Over half of the Native American English-speaking (Group 1) participants chose the
"studies" option and thought "studies" sounded friendlier and "research" sounded more
official.
• Over half of the Haitian Creole-speaking participants chose the "studies" option;
however, all Haitian Creole-speaking participants commented that the two options are
interchangeable.
• Over half of Bengali-speaking participants selected the "studies" option, with one
participant remarking that 'study' is easier for the public to understand.
47
-------
o One Bengali-speaking participant noted no difference between "research" and
"studies."
• An overwhelming majority of Portuguese-speaking participants chose the "studies"
option, with one participant remarking that "studies" is more scientific and that
"research" is part of the study.
o However, one Portuguese-speaking participant indicated that "research" is more
in-depth than "studies."
• Over half of English-speaking participants selected the "studies" option. One English-
speaking participant added that scientists or doctors perform "studies" whereas anyone
can do "research". Another English-speaking participant indicated that "studies" means
that "research" has been previously done.
o However, one English-speaking participant added that "research" is more
credible since the entity conducting the "studies" matters. Another English-
speaking participant selected "research" since that is how their friends and
family who work in "research" refer to it. This participant added that "research"
also sounds more official.
Five focus groups generally preferred the "Generally, research has found..." option. These
groups are bulleted below with key commentary:
> Thai, Cambodian, Cantonese, Native American English (Group 2), Laotian
• All Thai-speaking participants and the overwhelming majority of Cambodian-,
Cantonese-, and Laotian-speaking participants preferred the "research" option. Over
half of Native American English-speaking (Group 2) participants selected the "research"
option, because they thought "research" seemed broader and more in-depth than just
"studies." Thai-speaking participants noted that "research" involves a deep dive into
something and denotes credibility.
o A single Thai-speaking participant suggested modifying "research" to "research
findings."
o Cambodian-speaking participants remarked that they thought "research"
requires a greater level of effort to find the information, analyze it and
synthesize the results for the public. One Cambodian-speaking participant
thought that the word "studies" could confuse Cambodian speakers.
o The Cantonese-speaking participants indicated that "research" is simpler to
understand; however, one participant remarked that they thought "studies"
sounded more official.
48
-------
o One Native American English-speaking (Group 2) participant suggested the
options could be used interchangeably.
o Laotian-speaking participants agreed that "research" should be conducted first
to gather data and "studies" should follow the "research."
Four focus groups were evenly split between which phrasing option they preferred. These
groups are bulleted below with key commentary.
> Hmong, Japanese, Tagalog, Spanish
• For the Hmong focus group, the results were mixed. Hmong participants were evenly
split between the options and had opposing opinions, suggesting that either language
option could be used.
• Japanese-speaking participants were evenly divided between the "research" and
"studies" options and indicated that both word choices were similar.
o One Japanese-speaking participant thought that there was little difference
between "research" and "studies." and added that both words were equally hard
to understand. Another Japanese-speaking participant remarked that "research"
gives the impression of sampling fish whereas "studies" connotes reading
literature or conducting laboratory work. Another Japanese-speaking participant
who selected the "research" option indicated that "research" sounds as if
something was actively implemented.
• Tagalog-speaking participants were evenly split between the options and had differing
opinions, suggesting that either language option was appropriate.
o One Tagalog-speaking participant thought that "research" is more thorough and
detailed. Another Tagalog-speaking participant suggested that "research"
indicates that the impact on people has already been determined, whereas
"studies" suggests that the impact on people has not yet been determined.
Several Tagalog-speaking participants indicated that "studies" is easier to
understand in Tagalog as opposed to "research." which involves more
challenging words.
• Spanish-speaking participants were evenly split between the "research" and "studies"
options.
o Several Spanish-speaking participants thought that "studies" includes evidence
and results, whereas "research" involves mostly investigation. One Spanish-
speaking participant indicated that "studies" more clearly articulates the parts of
49
-------
the fish that are safe to eat and the parts of the fish to discard. In contrast, one
Spanish-speaking participant thought that "research" is a stronger word.
EATING FISH IS HEALTHY
WHEN YOU EAT THE RIGHT PARTS!
UJ THROW AWAY
Generally, research has found that
lese parts have higher amounts
of chemical contamination.
ORGANS
HEAD
SKIN
FAT
Generally, research has found that
these parts have lower amounts
of chemical contamination.
FILLET
FISH STEAK
AVOID EATING
Limited research has assessed the
amount of chemical contamination
of these parts.
BONES TAIL
FINS
Choose fish wisely by checking local fish
advisories for information on which fish are safe to
eat, how often to eat them, and the amount to eat.
www.localfishadvisory.gov
EATING FISH IS HEALTHY
WHEN YOU EAT THE RIGHT PARTS!
UjJ throw away
Generally, studies have found that
these parts have higher amounts
of chemical contamination.
ORGANS SKIN
HEAD FAT
Generally, studies have found that
these parts have lower amounts of
chemical contamination.
FILLET
FISH STEAK
AVOID EATING
Few studies have assessed the
amount of chemical contamination
of these parts.
BONES TAIL
FINS
Choose fish wisely by checking local fish
advisories for information on which fish are safe to
eat, how often to eat them, and the amount to eat.
www.localfishadvisory.gov
image Language 3
Image Language 4
Figure 7. Image with wording differences: "research" vs. "studies"
50
-------
A. Part 1
No preference
¦
Cambodian
¦
Cantonese
¦
Haitian Creole
~
Hmong
¦
Korean
~
Native American 1
0
Native American 2
¦
Thai
"Studies"
"Research"
0 2 4 6
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Number of Participants (N)
B. Part 2
No preference
"Research"
¦ Amharic
¦ Bengali
¦ English
n Japanese
¦ Laotian
~ Polish
¦ Portuguese
¦ Spanish
¦ Tagalog
"Studies"
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46
Number of Participants (N)
Figure 8. Results from Poll #5 (A. Part 1, B. Part 2): Which wording do you like better?
"studies" or "research" (Single answer per participant.) An interactive version is available on
the Tableau website.
51
-------
Table 8. ICF identified the following quotations as relevant to Poll #5
Focus Group
Participant3 and Quote
Korean
Participant G: [on research vs. studies] "1 hold more meaning in 'studies' than 'research'
Because 'research' feels like something that anyone can do, but 'studies'
feel like conclusions by experts, so it feels more professional. For me, at
least."
Hmong
Participant B: "For me, why 1 prefer 'studies', because it is the process of studying like
someone has done the work to find evidence, data, to support the
research goal. Whether it is true or not, there has been the act of finding
the truth. It can be like it is this way because of this and it is this way
because of that. Thus, to me it sounds more professional and more
academic."
Participant F: "When you go look for things, when in Hmong 'research' sounds easily
understandable than the latter. The latter does sound okay but 1 like the
first one more. It is more professional."
Cambodian
Participant D: "1 choose the word 'research' over 'study.' For study we just go to school to
learn. For research, it takes a lot of time to find information to put them
together. 1 can go to school with a teacher from time to time. 1 understand
that the word research is more valuable to me than just study because 1
value research more."
Native American
Group 1
Participant D: "1 said studies because it just sounds like a nicer word when someone says
research, research shows, 1 think of pharmaceutical commercials. They
both [say] the same pretty much. It just sounds better."
Native American
Group 2
Participant F: "Yeah, research to me just kind of is synonymous with in-depth. It just
seems like it's a deeper kind of getting into it, and a study could be
anything."
Cantonese
Participant D: "Research is more simple."
Participant C: "1 feel like "study" is more official. Has official support. Like everyone can
put information on YouTube. But is there any backup to the information?
But if it is information coming from the government? Or is it one's own
research? Anyone can open a YouTube account to put their research on it.
So 1 think "Study" is more official."
Haitian Creole
Participant F: "There's no difference between research and study. The study leads to
research. It's the same thing. According to all the information we have,
they're connected together. It's what gives these two answers."
Thai
Participant A: "Research is not just about reading, but it's about delving deep into testing
everything and presenting the research results. It's like this, but studying
just reads a few comments, it doesn't delve deep. 1 prefer the word
"research" more [...] If we add more research findings, it will be excellent."
52
-------
Focus Group
Participant3 and Quote
Bengali
Participant H: "What time of the year is [the fish] being obtained? How you are cleaning
it? [How] are not? Whether you can eat the fish or not depends on these.
So, It is a study, because it is relative. I would use the research word only if
I had this focused, what does say, what is showing to a group, I mean
scientifically if I want to show this picture to a group, then obviously I
would need more details of the same picture, plus I would use the word
'research/ over there, but for the common public I think, 'study' is much
easier word on their minds."
Amharic
Participant B: "Study and research both are the same... they describe the same thing...
so... I selected one just because it I had to choose one, otherwise they are
similar words... they convey the same thing..."
Participant D: "I prefer the one with 'Studies found/ I feel that it is better with studies. I
think both are related terms... when we say research, it is to examine, or to
study, so now I understand both are similar."
Polish
Participant B: "As I look at this leaflet. There are a lot of very general phrases like in
general. There is less, not more, there are no percentages, there are no
scientific, professional formulations. Due to the fact that we can freely skip
the term studies here, just some research. Yes. In general, the tests, it's all
great! Generally, it's super simple language, so sloppy and that's it."
Participant D: "So yes, research is research, but whoever pays and does research gets
money simply and the result."
Participant E: "I too, as if I subscribe to the fact that studies sounds more credible. But I
would miss having an asterisk or a reference there. Or maybe this QR led
to it being written what specific research, who conducted it?"
Participant G: "I prefer studies. A more scientific word...So this studies kind of increases
the reliability and trust in this information presented on the leaflet."
Japanese
Participant C: "Yes, 'research.' I did it because it actually sounded like something that was
implemented somehow, in action. That's why I voted it personally."
Participant H: "I chose 'research', but I'm not sensing that much difference between
'study' and 'research'. I like the sound of 'research' better, though."
Participant I: "When I say 'research', I feel like I see a lot offish in front of me. It appears
to me that lot offish were covered. When I say 'study/ I mean that I have
studied a variety of literature, or that I have thoroughly examined a certain
number of samples in a laboratory under a microscope. It sounds more like
a laboratory. If I call it 'research,' it is more like going out to the ocean,
catching fish from here and there, and looking at all kinds offish, you
know? I have that impression."
53
-------
Focus Group
Participant3 and Quote
Portuguese
Participant E: "I prefer study because it seems more scientific, research can be anything..."
"In my mind, research is part of the study."
Participant I: "Research is something more in-depth, right? I like research more. More about
research. It's research that goes deeper."
Laotian
Participant C: "If we have not researched first and we studied, there will be nothing for
our conversation. It is about going to school. They research first, then we
go to study."
Participant E: "Research" allows us to better remember."
Participant F: "Research then studies. Without research, how can we study?"
Tagalog
Participant B: "I chose 'research' because it involves gathering facts and doing thorough
research. It means that the information seen in images is given effort to be
shown as true and includes all relevant details."
Participant C: "For me, I chose 'research' because when you say research, it implies that
there is already evidence or impact on people that has been discovered. In
contrast, 'studies' is still in the process of examining what its effects might
be on people."
Participant E: "I chose the term 'studies' because I don't understand research in Tagalog.
Many of the words are too deep for some people, so for me, it's deep.
'Studies' is easier to understand."
Participant G: "I chose 'studies' because the word research seems too specialized; it's too
deep in Tagalog, so I chose 'studies.'"
Spanish
Participant E: "Studies' is more convincing [...] because a study already has results and
research is just learning what they are basically reporting. Well, there are
almost no results in research and in a study yes."
Participant F: "I agreed with [Participant E] because the study is like it's already based [on
evidence]. And research is just like they are still investigating."
Participant G: "Well, for me 'studies' [gives me more insight] on fish such [as] what is good
and what is bad."
Participant J: "I chose 'research' because it sounds stronger. And as [Participant E] said,
who is like him, like some investigations more like what is happening, but
there are also many fish. And there are also different things that we still
don't know which we can eat and which we can't. Well, that's why I think
that in research it's a stronger word."
54
-------
Focus Group
Participant3 and Quote
English
Participant A: "1 think, well, what 1 was thinking was you're not listening to studies. So
where the studies coming from tends to matter. It's done by a fish
company. I'm not really concerned with what their studies say. Right.
'Research' a little bit more general, A little. It could be a comparison. If you
put 'EPA studies,' 'EPA research,' it kind of defines it a little bit more for
me. So 'studies,' having read studies from different groups of people.
Sometimes the people that want you to go their way, 1 think it leaves it a
little more open."
Participant A: "1 think 'research' to me comes across as a little bit more trustworthy."
Participant D: "1 think anybody can do research. Scientists do studies or doctors do
studies."
Participant E: "1 put down 'studies' because it makes me feel secure that research has
been performed."
Participant G: "Yeah, 1 chose 'research' just because 1 have friends and family members
that do research as their work. So none of them say, yeah, 1 do studies.
They all refer to it as research. So in my opinion it sounds more official
when you say 'research.'"
aThe participants' names were blinded using letters and only a selection of key quotes is
presented in this table, and therefore, does not necessarily reflect the opinions of all
participants.
55
-------
3.3.2.3. Language - Final Preference
Poll #6: Which is the easiest to understand of all options: "tend to have," "generally
have," "research." "studies"
Participants were asked which of the four options was the easiest to understand after the
discussion about poll #5. The full phrasing options are shown below in Figure 9.The poll #6
results are displayed below in Figure 10 and relevant quotations to this poll are provided below
in Table 9.
Five focus groups generally indicated the "research" option as the easiest to understand. These
groups are bulleted below with key commentary:
> Thai, Cambodian, Cantonese, Bengali, Laotian
• All Thai-speaking participants preferred the "research" option.
o The Thai participants did not believe the other options were as clear as the
"research" option, with one participant remarking that "research" implies the
information is trustworthy.
• An overwhelming majority of the Cambodian-speaking participants and half of the
Cantonese-speaking participants preferred the option including "research."
o Cantonese-speaking participants noted that "research" is simpler, more direct,
and often includes "studies."
o Two Cantonese participants remarked that the phrase does not need the word
"generally" as the word is associated with hesitancy.
• Half of Bengali-speaking participants preferred the "research" option.
o One Bengali-speaking participant added that "research" is more in-depth and has
a greater impact on people. Another Bengali-speaking participant remarked that
"research" is more credible than "studies."
• Under half of Bengali-speaking participants selected the "generally have" option.
o One Bengali-speaking participant indicated that 'generally' is synonymous with
usually, which is preferable to them.
• An overwhelming majority of the Laotian-speaking participants preferred the option
including "research."
o One Laotian-speaking participant added that "tends to have" is just too difficult
to understand.
56
-------
o Another Laotian-speaking participant indicated that the meaning behind "tends
to have" can vary.
Four focus groups favored the word "studies". These groups are bulleted below with key
commentary:
> Korean, Amharic, Hmong, Portuguese
• The overwhelming majority of Korean-speaking participants preferred the option
including "studies."
• Half of Amharic-speaking participants preferred the "studies" option. Although
participants indicated that both "research" and "studies" were similar, only one
Amharic-speaking participant thought that "research" was the easiest to understand.
• Under half of Hmong-speaking participants preferred "studies." However, this selection
still received the most votes during poll #6 since the participants were split between the
four options.
o The remaining Hmong participants were split between the "research" and "tend
to have" options. This likely indicates that multiple options may be suitable for
communicating this message. Hmong-speaking participants indicated that
Hmong required clarity about the word "chemical contamination" and what
chemical it was referring to, regardless of the word choices being discussed.
• Over half of Portuguese-speaking participants selected the "studies" option.
Portuguese-speaking participants did not have comments in this poll and quotes from
these groups are not included in Table 9.
Five focus groups favored the wording "generally have". These groups are bulleted below with
key commentary:
> Japanese, Haitian Creole, Native American English (Groups 1 and 2), Tagalog
• Half of Japanese-speaking participants selected the "generally have" option.
o One Japanese-speaking participant indicated that "generally" refers to members
of the public and is understandable. In contrast, another Japanese-speaking
participant noted that "research" is carried out by the government and rooted in
authority. Another Japanese-speaking participant added that the sentence
length for all word choices is too long.
o The remaining Japanese-speaking participants were split between the "research"
and "tend to have" options, indicating some split opinions in the group and that
multiple options may be suitable for communicating this message.
57
-------
• Half of the Haitian Creole-speaking participants preferred the "generally have" option.
o Under half of Haitian Creole-speaking participants preferred "research."
indicating some split opinions in the group and that multiple options may be
suitable for communicating this message.
• Half of Spanish-speaking participants selected the "generally have" option.
o However, under half of Spanish-speaking participants preferred the "studies"
option. One Spanish-speaking participant selected the "research" option.
Spanish-speaking participants did not have comments in this poll and quotes
from these groups are not included in Table 9.
• Over half of the Native American English-speaking (Group 1), and under half of the
Native American English-speaking (Group 2) participants preferred the "generally have"
option.
o However, under half of Native American English-speaking (Group 1) preferred
"research" and few Native American English-speaking (Group 2) participants
preferred "studies." The split opinions between "generally have." "research."
and "studies" indicates that multiple options may be suitable for communicating
this message.
• Under half of Tagalog-speaking participants selected the "generally have" option.
However, this selection still received the most votes during poll #6 since the participants
were split between the four options.
o However, one Tagalog-speaking participant indicated that "research" most
appropriately captures the contents of the image and is therefore easier to
understand. Another Tagalog-speaking participant added that "research"
substantiates why certain fish parts can be consumed while others should be
thrown away. Another Tagalog-speaking participant stated that most people will
not understand "research" even though "research" is a more appropriate term,
especially in the United States. This same participant added that they would
prefer a mix of English and Tagalog, known as Taglish.
58
-------
One focus group generally identified the "tend to have" option as the easiest to understand.
The focus group key commentary is bulleted below.
P Polish
• The overwhelming majority of Polish-speaking participants selected the "tend to have"
option. However, several Polish-speaking participants remarked that the easiest term is
not necessarily the most convincing term. One Polish-speaking participant indicated that
"generally have" portrays a less credible message.
One focus group was split between the "tend to have." "generally have," and the "research"
options as the easiest to understand. The focus group key commentary is bulleted below.
> English
• English-speaking participants were evenly split between each of the following phrase
options: "tend to have," "generally have." and "research."
o One English-speaking participant chose the "studies" option as the easiest to
understand.
Image with "Tends to have" language
Image with "Generally have" language
f
IIEAT
a
fjj THROW AWAY
CESese parts tend to ha^&tower
Ctljese parts tend to hayiiihlflher
levels oi chemical contamination.
levels of chemical contamination.
FILLET
HEAD FAT
FtSH STEAK
V
SKIN ORGANS
J
Image with "Research" language
( III
A 1
Ueat
(jj THROW AWAY
GenerallyCTesearch has foJn^thal
these parts have lower amounts of
chemical contamination.
Gerterally.higher
levels of chemical contamination.
levels of chemical contamination.
FILLET
FISH STEAK
V
HEAD FAT
SKIN ORGANS
J
Image with "Studies" language
11eat
\
j|[ THROW AWAY
Generall^gtudies have founcphat
GenerallyCstudtes have found that
these parts have lower amounts Of
chemical contamination.
these parts have mgner amounts
of chemical contamination.
FILLET
FISH STEAK
V
HEAD FAT
SKIN ORGANS
Figure 9. Image with all wording differences: '"'tend to have/' "generally have." "research,"
and "studies"
59
-------
A. Part 1
No preference
"Tends to
have"
"Studies"
"Generally
have"
"Research"
¦ Cambodian
¦ Cantonese
¦ Haitian Creole
a Hmong
¦ Korean
~ Native American 1
¦ Native American 2
¦ Thai
012345678 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Number of Participants (N)
B. Part 2
No preference
¦ Amharic
¦ Bengali
¦ English
n Japanese
¦ Laotian
~ Polish
¦ Portuguese
¦ Spanish
¦ Tagalog
"Research"
"Generally
have"
9 10 1112 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Number of Participants (N)
Figure 10. Results from Poll #6 (A. Part 1, B. Part 2): Which is the easiest to understand of all
options: "tend to have," "generally have," "research," "studies" (Single answer per
participant.) An interactive version is available on the Tableau website.
60
-------
Table 9. ICF identified the following quotations as relevant to Poll #6
Focus Group
Participant3 and Quote
Korean
Participant E: "The word 'studies' is credible."
Hmong
Participant A: "1 chose 'studies' because it's easier to understand."
Cambodian
Participant A: 'The word that makes me believe that it is safe to eat is the word 'research'.
It is clear. 1 know for sure that the word has been researched to find out,
and then they put it in. The results are clear from 90% to 99% that it is safe
to eat. The word 'research' makes me understand that 1 can eat."
Native American
Group 2
Participant F: "It's probably not information that many of us really know about, so, we
need to learn. But, you know, 1 picked the one with research and generally,
but 1 would rewrite it. On the throwaway part, 1 would probably say
research, 1 would take out generally. 1 would say 'research has found that
these parts tend to have higher amounts of chemical contamination.' And
then on the eating part, 1 would leave it the way it is."
Cantonese
Participant 1: "Because the news always says 'research shows' so it's more direct."
Haitian Creole
Participant A: "I'm more familiar with this term [generally, and have heard it more often
than the others], so it was easier to understand. [...] I'm less familiar with
this phrase [tend to have], even though 1 understand it, this is not how 1
would even initially phrase it this way. This is why it's more difficult for me
to understand."
Thai
Participant E: "As a consumer viewing this media, 1 believe that the term "research"
indicates credibility. This media appears trustworthy."
Bengali
Participant A: "1 prefer 'generally' better which means usually and 'tend' means tendency.
1 would rather go with the usual thing rather than tendency."
Participant B: "If it is a fact, then what 1 understand is adhyayan (^PITISM) means 'study',
and gabeshona means 'research'. So, one can actually do 'study'
with just data, from some samples. And the 'research' is much more in-
depth, if someone has actually done any testing or 'research' on the
chemistry where it says, yes. So, by 'research' 1 mean strong, if these are
facts. 1 mean, 1 think these facts actually come from some 'research', not
just from some 'study'. So, it's much more impactful and has a much more
impact on people, if it's 'research.'"
Participant C: "think 'research' has more credibility than 'studies'. 'Study'... doesn't seem
like much 'research'. A lot of participants are in 'research', that's all done."
Polish
Participant A: "1 agree with the predecessor that 1 chose what is the easiest. That doesn't
mean the most precise or the most convincing, but the easiest."
Participant G: "The easiest to understand doesn't mean it's the best for us." "1 can say that
on the same principle that the more complicated the vocabulary you use,
the more difficult it is to understand the sentence."
Participant H: "1 think it's more a question of credibility here. If something is written in
such a general way. For me, this is less credibility of such a message."
61
-------
Focus Group
Participant3 and Quote
Japanese
Participant E: "1 also felt that this 'tend to have' is vague and unclear. 'Research' and
'study' mean that research has been done, and 'generally' means that the
people reading this are ordinary citizens, so 'generally' is understandable,
but 'tend to have' is vague and ambiguous."
Participant 1: "The ['research' and 'studies' options], 1 feel like they are trying to answer as
accurately as possible without being poked by anyone. The top ['generally
have'] one is shorter, more complete, and more concise. [For the
'research' option], there is research as the background to all of this. It's the
result of that. It is already implicitly assumed, that is, the government is
the one who is supposed to come up with this, right? 1 get the feeling that
the government has done enough research behind the scenes to say this.
In other words, it is short, but it is accompanied by authority. 1 can say that
the government is saying."
Participant J: "When there are three lines [of text], I'm going to dismiss it. 1 think [the
wording for all] it is a little too long" [on their general impression of the
wording] "This, alone, will not change its fundamental thoughts and
actions, but as the other person mentioned earlier, 1 think it's a good
starting point, or something to let you think like, 'oh, maybe it's just the
way things are, 1 see'. So, somewhat to add to your information for that
person, 1 would say."
Laotian
Participant A: 'The word 'tends to' is too [difficult to understand], isn't it?"
Participant F: "'Studies' is clear, but yeah this word 'tends to have' means maybe it is,
maybe it is liked, many people may like it. We don't know what it is
actually?"
62
-------
Focus Group
Participant3 and Quote
Tagalog
Participant B: "1 chose 'research' because it represents the correct process and term or
language for the images, making it more understandable for everyone. So,
we researched to find the right language for the images."
Participant F: "1 chose 'research.' It's somewhat deep in Tagalog, but with research there
is proof of why it is said that something should be eaten or discarded."
Participant 1: "1 chose the term 'studies,' although research might be more appropriate if
we use it in our current setting here in America. 'Studies' is better because
the population here, for example, children who were brought here and
grew up here, don't understand other languages. So, let's keep it simple
with 'Studies' which can also mean research. But if 1 really want to be
understood, 1 would just use Taglish (a mix of English and Tagalog), like
saying, 'base sa pag-research, ito yung nangyayari' (based on the research,
this is what's happening). It still has the same meaning. Because if we insist
on using the correct term, about 60% won't understand it, so it's
pointless."
Participant F: "Because if you say Generally have meaning in English is usually, it might not
be right—it should be usually discarded or 'not eaten.' It seems like saying
'Okay, I'll just eat it because it's usual.' But when you say research there is
a basis for why they say something to avoid eating it or recommended to
eat that part of the fish."
English
Participant E: "1 was actually the opposite. 1 think 'tend to' have was the easiest,
'generally' was the most difficult."
Participant F: "'Generally' 1 would say the word 'generally' is kind of pretty easy to
understand. 'Tends' could be like if you don't really speak too much English
could be really difficult to understand. But 'generally' is in general fish got
those chemicals or 1 think for me 'generally' will be the easiest to
understand."
aThe participants' names were blinded using letters and only a selection of key quotes is
presented in this table, and therefore, does not necessarily reflect the opinions of all
participants.
63
-------
Poll #7: Which is the hardest to understand: "tend to have," "generally have,"
"research," or "studies"?
Participants were asked which of the four phrasing options was the hardest to understand after
the discussion about poll #6. See Figure 9 above for the entire phrasing options. The poll #7
results are displayed below in Figure 11 and relevant quotations related to this poll are
provided below in Table 10.
Eight focus groups generally indicated the "tend to have" option as the hardest to understand.
These groups are bulleted below with key commentary:
> Cambodian, Korean, Native American English (Group 1), Cantonese, Haitian Creole, Thai,
Tagalog, Spanish
• All Cambodian- and Spanish-speaking participants, an overwhelming majority of
Korean-, Native American English-speaking (Group 1), Cantonese-, and Tagalog-speaking
participants, and over half of Haitian Creole- and Thai-speaking participants indicated
that the "tend to have" language was the hardest to understand.
o One Spanish-speaking participant remarked that "tend to have" does not imply
that something is certain.
o One Tagalog-speaking participant indicated that "tend to have" is not frequently
used in the media.
o One Korean-speaking participant emphasized that specifying the authority
behind the language used would add credibility to the message when using the
"research" or "studies" options.
o One Korean-, one Haitian Creole-, two Tagalog- and two Native American
English-speaking (Group 1) participants thought "research" was the most difficult
to understand.
o One Hmong-, one Cantonese-, one Tagalog- and two Native American English-
speaking participants (Group 1) thought the "studies" option was the most
difficult to understand.
Three focus groups generally indicated the "generally have" option as the hardest to
understand. These groups are bulleted below with key commentary:
> Hmong, Native American English (Group 2), Portuguese
• An overwhelming majority of Hmong-speaking participants thought that "generally
have" was the hardest to understand.
64
-------
o One Hmong-speaking participant thought the "studies" option was the most
difficult to understand.
• Under half of Native American English-speaking (Group 2) participants indicated that
"generally have" was the most difficult to understand.
o Only one Native American English-speaking (Group 2) participant thought
"research" was the most difficult to understand, and only one Native American
English-speaking (Group 2) participant thought "studies" was the most difficult
to understand.
• Over half of Portuguese-speaking participants thought that "generally have" was the
hardest to understand. Portuguese-speaking participants did not have comments in this
poll and quotes from these groups are not included in Table 10.
One focus group generally indicated the "research" option as the hardest to understand. This
group is bulleted below with key commentary:
> Bengali
• Half of Bengali-speaking participants indicated that "research" was the hardest to
understand.
o The remaining Bengali-speaking participants were split between the "tend to
have" and "generally have" options.
One focus group generally indicated the "studies" option as the hardest to understand. This
group is bulleted below with key commentary:
> Laotian
• Half of Laotian-speaking participants indicated that "studies" was the hardest to
understand.
o One Laotian-speaking participant indicated that the phrase "tends to have" is too
difficult to understand.
o Another Laotian-speaking participant thought that "tend to have" can have
different meanings.
65
-------
Four focus groups were generally split between which language option was the hardest to
understand. These groups are bulleted below with key commentary:
> Amharic, Polish, Japanese, English
• Half of Amharic-speaking participants selected the "generally have" option, and the
other half selected the "tend to have" option as the phrase that was the most difficult to
understand.
o One Amharic-speaking participant remarked that that the phrase "tend to have"
changed their understanding of the message and prevented them from
accepting the statement with certainty when compared to the phrase "generally
have."
• Polish-speaking participants were divided on the four language options. Under half of
Polish-speaking participants selected "studies" as the most difficult language option,
and few participants indicated that "research" and "generally have" were hardest to
understand.
o One participant remarked that these four terms are vague, which reduces the
credibility of the message. Another Polish-speaking participant added that the
complicated vocabulary makes it more challenging to understand the sentence.
• Japanese-speaking participants were also divided on the four language options. Under
half of Japanese-speaking participants selected "research" as the most difficult language
option, and few participants found "tend to have." "generally have." or "studies" as the
hardest language choices to understand.
o One Japanese-speaking participant remarked that "generally" was vague and the
most difficult to understand. Another Japanese-speaking participant added that
"tend to have" does not give a definitive answer as to the amount of something.
• Under half of English-speaking participants indicated that "generally have" was the
hardest to understand.
o Few English-speaking participants thought that "tends to have" was the most
difficult to understand. One English-speaking participant added that "tends" can
be difficult to understand for someone who is not as familiar with the English
language.
66
-------
A. Part 1
¦ Cambodian
¦ Cantonese
¦ Haitian Creole
a Hmong
¦ Korean
~ Native American 1
¦ Native American 2
¦ Thai
0 2 4 6
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38
Number of Participants (N)
B. Part 2
Amharic
Bengali
English
Japanese
¦ Laotian
~ Polish
¦ Portuguese
¦ Spanish
¦ Tagalog
9 101112 13 14 15 1617 18 19 20 2122 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Number of Participants (N)
Figure 11. Results from Poll #7 (A. Part 1, B. Part 2): Which is the hardest to understand: "tend
to have." "generally have," "research." or "studies"? (Single answer per participant.) An
interactive version is available on the Tableau website.
67
-------
Table 10. ICF identified the following quotations as relevant to Poll #7
Focus Group
Participant3 and Quote
Korean
Participant D: "1 chose 'tend to' as the most difficult one to understand, and 'generally' as
what 1 believe to be the best expression. As for 'research' vs. 'studies', 1
thought there should be more [information], specifically the goal for
conducting the research thus [adding] more credibility."
Hmong
Participant A: "1 chose 'generally have' because it sounds ambiguous."
Cambodian
Participant E: This word ['tend to have'] is too broad and no test of any evidence
presented."
Cantonese
Participant B: "'Tend to have' [is hard to understand] because Cantonese people don't use
this phrase much."
Haitian Creole
Participant A: "I'm less familiar with this phrase ['tend to have'], even though 1 understand
it, this is not how 1 would even initially phrase it this way. This is why it's
more difficult for me to understand."
Thai
Participant H: "Because for me, both 'generally' and 'tendency' cover the same ground.
Neither of them is clear. In this section, there's high contamination, and in
this section, there's no contamination, or something like that. It would be
clearer."
Amharic
Participant B: 'The changing of the wording hinders people from accepting it with
certainty... now for example, for me to accept it with certainty... for
example 'tend to,' especially, is an ambiguous term, and as a result, 1 have
a feeling that it changes my thinking... the other one, however, when it
says 'generally,' it indicates me that it is sure."
Polish
Participant E: "All in all, these are vague, then maybe that's why 1 trust a little less, but in
general, the difference between these four not so much."
Participant G: "The easiest to understand doesn't mean it's the best for us." "1 can say that
on the same principle that the more complicated the vocabulary you use,
the more difficult it is to understand the sentence."
Participant H: "1 think it's more a question of credibility here. If something is written in
such a general way. For me, this is less credibility of such a message."
Japanese
Participant C: "It is not clear what the 'tend to have' is [referring to]. How much of a 'tend
to have' do you mean?"
Participant F: "1 voted 'generally' [as difficult to understand] rather than 'research' or
'study'. To me, 'generally' sounds very vague So 1 guess it's really a personal
feeling, but that's why 1 picked 'generally'."
Laotian
Participant A: 'The word 'tends to' is too [difficult to understand], isn't it?"
Participant F: "'Studies' is clear, but yeah this word 'tends to have' means maybe it is,
maybe it is liked, many people may like it. We don't know what it is
actually?"
68
-------
Focus Group
Participant3 and Quote
Tagalog
Participant C: "My answer is 'tends to have' because this phrase is not something you
usually hear. You don't often hear it in the news, newspapers, or media. 1
more commonly 'studies' and 'research,' but 'tends to have' is something 1
actually just saw for the first time in such signs."
Spanish
Participant E:" [Tends to' is the hardest to understand] because as [Participant 1] said the
first time, it doesn't assure you anything. Well, that's basically hard to
understand."
English
Participant E: "1 was actually the opposite. 1 think 'tend to' have was the easiest,
'generally' was the most difficult."
Participant F: "Generally' 1 would say the word 'generally' is kind of pretty easy to
understand. 'Tends' could be like if you don't really speak too much English
could be really difficult to understand. But 'generally' is in general fish got
those chemicals or 1 think for me 'generally' will be the easiest to
understand."
aThe participants' names were blinded using letters and only a selection of key quotes is
presented in this table, and therefore, does not necessarily reflect the opinions of all
participants.
69
-------
3.3.2.4. Language - Gray fish parts
Poll #8: Which wording do you like better: "assessed" or "evaluated"?
All participants, except the Haitian Creole- and Bengali-speaking groups, were asked which
wording they liked better: "assessed" or "evaluated." Haitian Creole- and Bengali-speaking
groups were not asked this question because "assessed" and "evaluated" have identical
translations in those languages. See Figure 12 below for the full phrasing options. The poll #8
results are shown below in Figure 13 and relevant quotations related to this poll are provided
below in Table 11.
Ten focus groups generally preferred the "evaluated" option. These groups are bulleted below
with key commentary:
> Cantonese, Cambodian, Native American English (Groups 1 and 2), Thai, Japanese,
Hmong, Tagalog, Spanish, English
• All of the Cantonese-, Tagalog-, Spanish-, and English-speaking participants, an
overwhelming majority of Cambodian-, Native American English-, Thai-, Japanese-, and
Portuguese-speaking participants, and over half of Hmong-speaking participants
preferred the word "evaluated."
o Native American English-speaking (Groups 1 and 2) participants thought that
"evaluated" yielded a more quantitative and thorough result.
o Cantonese-speaking participants commented that "assessed" seemed to be
unsure or casual and "evaluated" is more professional.
o One Japanese-speaking participant preferred "evaluation" as it is a more general
term compared to "assessed" which is more technical and methods driven.
o One Portuguese-speaking participant commented that "evaluated" means that
detail was provided for every little part. Another Portuguese-speaking
participant indicated that there is no difference between the two terms.
o Tagalog-speaking participants indicated that "evaluated" is used more frequently
and is easier to understand. One Tagalog-speaking participant added that they
never heard the word "assessed" in Tagalog.
o One Spanish-speaking participant thought that "evaluated" is synonymous with
the ongoing study.
o English-speaking participants indicated that "evaluated" sounds as if something
has undergone testing and has produced a certain conclusion. One English-
speaking participant associated "evaluated" with the role of the FDA.
70
-------
o Hmong-speaking participants were split between the options, suggesting either
option could be used for the images.
Three focus groups generally preferred the "assessed" option. The focus group key
commentary is bulleted below.
> Polish, Korean, Laotian
• An overwhelming majority of Polish-speaking participants selected the word "assessed".
Polish-speaking participants thought that "assessed" sounded more definitive and more
likely to be used in scientific literature.
o Korean-speaking participants were split between the options, suggesting either
option could be used for the images.
o However, Korean-speaking participants agreed that "assessed" is more common
and easier to understand in their language.
• An overwhelming majority of Laotian-speaking participants selected the word
"assessed". Although Laotian-speaking participants chose the word "assessed." several
participants indicated that "assessed" does not indicate certainty.
o One Laotian-speaking participant indicated that "evaluated" suggests greater
certainty.
o Another Laotian-speaking participant added that "assessed" indicates a guess.
o One Laotian-speaking participant added that "evaluated" is easier to understand
when using market language.
One focus group was split between the "assessed" and "evaluated" options. The focus group
key commentary is bulleted below.
> Amharic
• Amharic-speaking participants were evenly split between "assessed" and "evaluated."
but remarked that "evaluated" means that something (e.g., research) is still in progress,
whereas "assessed" suggests that something has been completed, indicating that
"assessed" may be preferable.
71
-------
AVOID EATING
Few studies have(essessed ;he
amount of chemical contaTrfination
of these parts.
BONES TAIL
FINS
AVOID EATING
Few studies have: evaluated)the
amount of chemicalcontaflimation
of these parts.
BONES TAIL
FINS
Figure 12. Image with wording differences: "assessed" vs. "evaluated."
72
-------
A. Part 1
"assessed"
¦ Cambodian
¦ Cantonese
¦ Haitian Creole
a Hmong
¦ Korean
~ Native American 1
¦ Native American 2
¦ Thai
"evaluated"
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42
Number of Participants (N)
B. Part 2
"assessed'
¦ Amharic
¦ Bengali
¦ English
n Japanese
¦ Laotian
~ Polish
¦ Portuguese
¦ Spanish
¦ Tagalog
"evaluated'
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48
Number of Participants (N)
Figure 13. Results from Poll #8 (A. Part 1, B. Part 2): Which wording do you like better?
"assessed" or "evaluated" (Single answer per participant.) An interactive version is available
on the Tableau website.
73
-------
Table 11. ICF identified the following quotations as relevant to Poll #8
Focus Group
Participant3 and Quote
Korean
Participant E: "In my mind, something 'assessed' sounds like a confirmed result gained by
results of a study, and something 'evaluated' creates an image of
something that informs of various things while in the midst of something -
whatever it could be."
Hmong
Participant A: "'Evaluated' shows a conduction of studies" [When asked about their
reaction about the language] "Without trashing parts of the fish, what
would you do to the parts you avoid eating?"
Cambodian
Participant E: 'The word 'assessed' has deep meaning and [is] difficult to understand. The
word 'evaluated' has a moderate level that the reader can understand."
Native American
Group 1
Participant F: "Well, evaluated is more towards quality of something where assessment is
just going over all the information that's collected."
Native American
Group 2
Participant B: "agree with that. That was why 1 chose evaluated also because evaluated
gives a kind of quantitative result. It kind of gives a definitive result, that
yes, the research has been done, the study has been done, the practical,
whatever thing was done, and we got this output. But assessment is like
just physically saying we kind of studied it and this is what we kind of felt.
It's not giving a kind of a direct answer a direct statement like evaluated."
Cantonese
Participant B: "'Evaluated' seems more formal... 'Assessed' seems unsure, not as
professional, doesn't seem like it is from real research."
Thai
Participant C: "To be able to assess, we have to evaluate it first. We don't have numbers
yet, these two words have meanings. It's not just plain Thai language. So,
we have to evaluate it first and then summarize the results as an
assessment. So, 1 don't know how to weigh it. [...] Evaluation is the
conclusion."
Amharic
Participant A: "[Evaluated means the research] is not yet [done], it means it's still in
evaluation, not approved."
Participant B: 'To 'assess' in Amharic language it means it's made certain. When we say
'evaluated', however, it's not finalized, it is not complete, that is the feeling
what it gives me..."
Participant D: 'To me if 'assessed,' it gives me a feeling that the thing is verified or is
approved by a study... it gives me a sense as approved or it is checked... it
passed a test, but if it is on evaluation but both are similar."
Polish
Participant C: "1 like the assessed better. It seems to me that it is more as if something is
counted, something is as if divided. Evaluated, seems to me very
subjectively, that's how it is judged. Well, cool, it's unhealthy, so, 1 think it
assessed that it will appeal to me more."
Participant G: "1 would also choose the word assessed. It seems to me that it is more
common in scientific literature of some professional opinion."
74
-------
Focus Group
Participant3 and Quote
Japanese
Participant F:
"1 chose the 'assessed1. When 1 read this Japanese, 'evaluated the amount of
pollution', 1 was a little concerned about the way you said 'evaluated the
amount'. 1 thought it might mean something like 'the amount is calculated,'
so 1 voted for the 'assessed' expression."
Participant 1:
'Evaluation' is a word that 1 usually use in these situations, so 1 don't feel at all
uncomfortable with it. However, 1 think 'assessed' involves a very concrete
description of the process. This is a method. 'Assessment' is a method. And
'evaluation' is really 'evaluation,' which is a general thing. Therefore, 1 don't
think the word 'assessed' is necessary to be included here, as it's such a
technical, process-oriented word."
Portuguese
Participant D:
"And evaluated is because they really got to every little part and have come
to the conclusion that it is best avoided."
Participant 1:
'1 don't think it makes any difference."
Laotian
Participant C:
"For me to understand, 1 would use 'evaluated.' This is personal for me." "It is
easier to understand when using the market language, please let them
know."
Participant E:
"Assessed] is not certain like 'evaluated'. If'evaluated,' you have already
inspected, it would be more certain."
Participant F:
"Yes, an assessment is simply a guess."
Tagalog
Participant A:
"My first reaction when 1 saw the word 'assessed' in Tagalog was a bit
surprising, as if 1 had forgotten where 1 had heard it before. 1 knew 1 had
heard it, but 1 couldn't remember what 'assessed' meant."
Participant B:
"1 chose the word 'evaluated' because 1 understand it better and hear it more
often. It's easier to use and is used more frequently."
Participant C:
"1 chose to use [evaluated] because 1 had never heard the word 'assessed'
before in Tagalog."
Spanish
Participant 1:
'Evaluated is the right way to use it [...] because they are supposed to be
doing a study. So, they are already evaluating the information that is being
given [...] and assessed only is like we are going with the same thing that
not, which [...] is not the way to say it."
75
-------
Focus Group
Participant3 and Quote
English
Participant C: "So 'evaluated' looks or sounds more like they've assessed the information,
they've processed it, possibly they've carried out some certain [research]
needs, and then they've come to a certain conclusion."
Participant E: "Yeah, 1 prefer 'evaluated.' 1 don't like 'assessed.' 'Evaluate' to me, sounds
like it's been tested, it's been research assessed to me means that you're
still looking into it."
Participant G: "If you see some vitamins or something, they say the, whatever has not
evaluated the information here. So I'm more familiar with that word
'evaluated.' 'Evaluated' to things like this because that's what the AFD or
whatever FDA uses."
aThe participants' names were blinded using letters and only a selection of key quotes is
presented in this table, and therefore, does not necessarily reflect the opinions of all
participants.
76
-------
Poll #9: Which wording do you like better: "little" or "limited"?
Participants were asked which wording they liked better: "little" or "limited." See Figure 14
below for the entire phrasing options. The poll #9 results are shown below in Figure 15 and
relevant quotations related to this poll are provided below in Table 12.
Twelve focus groups generally preferred the "limited" wording. These groups are bulleted
below with key commentary:
> Cambodian, Cantonese, Haitian Creole, Thai, Native American English (Groups 1 and 2),
Korean, Bengali, Amharic, Portuguese, Tagalog, English
• All Cambodian-speaking participants and an overwhelming majority of Haitian Creole-,
Thai-, Native American English-speaking (Groups 1 and 2), Portuguese-, Tagalog-, and
English-speaking participants, preferred the word "limited."
o One Tagalog-speaking participant indicated that "limited" seems more credible
than "little." Another Tagalog-speaking participant thought that "limited" is
simpler to understand than "little."
o Native American English-speaking (Group 2) participants thought "limited"
sounded more conclusive than "little."
o One English-speaking participant indicated that "limited" sounds more official.
o However, another English-speaking participant selected "little" and indicated
that "limited" means that individuals chose to stop the research at a certain
point even though there is more research to be done.
• Over half of Korean-, Cantonese-, Bengali-, and Amharic-speaking participants preferred
the word "limited."
• The Cantonese participants remarked that the translation of "little" and "limited" from
English to Cantonese is difficult for Cantonese speakers to understand. One Cantonese-
speaking participant indicated that "limited" and "little" have different meanings in
Cantonese. The same participant suggested that participants should focus on the English
version since the words have been directly translated from English, grammatical.
Five focus groups generally preferred the word "little". These groups are bulleted below with
key commentary:
> Polish, Japanese, Hmong, Laotian, Spanish
• An overwhelming majority of Polish-speaking participants selected the word "little." A
Polish-speaking participant indicated that "little" makes the sentence more sensible.
77
-------
Another Polish-speaking participant remarked that "little" is a more credible word that
suggests further studies will be completed in the future.
• An overwhelming majority of Japanese-speaking participants also preferred the word
"little." One Japanese-speaking participant selected "little" and indicated that the
Japanese character for "limited" was too hard to read. Another Japanese-speaking
participant noted that "limited" is a more positive expression even though it is more
difficult to read. Over half of Hmong-speaking participants preferred "little." and the
remaining participants selected "limited." which suggests either option could be used
for the images.
• However, Korean- and Hmong-speaking participants preferred the word 'studies' in
other parts of the image, suggesting that the "Few studies" language would be their
preference.
• Over half of Laotian-speaking participants selected the word "little."
o One Laotian-speaking participant indicated that "limited" is hard to understand.
• An overwhelming majority of Spanish-speaking participants chose the word "little."
Spanish-speaking participants thought that "little" is easier to understand than "limited"
and sounds more appropriate in context.
o One Spanish-speaking participant indicated that "limited" is a more formal
version of "little."
AVOID EATING
Limited research has assessed the
amount of chemical contamination
of these parts.
BONES TAIL
FINS
y
Figure 14. Image with wording differences: "little" vs. "limited"
AVOID EATING
Little research has assessed the
amount of chemical contamination
of these parts.
BONES TAIL
FINS
78
-------
A. Part 1
"Little1
¦ Cambodian
¦ Cantonese
¦ Haitian Creole
a Hmong
¦ Korean
~ Native American 1
¦ Native American 2
¦ Thai
"Limited"
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44
Number of Participants (N)
B. Part 2
"Little"
"Limited
¦ Amharic
¦ Bengali
¦ English
n Japanese
¦ Laotian
~ Polish
¦ Portuguese
¦ Spanish
¦ Tagalog
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54
Number of Participants (N)
Figure 15. Results from Poll #9 (A. Part 1, B. Part 2): Which wording do you like better? "little"
or "limited" (Single answer per participant.) An interactive version is available on the Tableau
website.
79
-------
Table 12. ICF identified the following quotations as relevant to Poll #9
Focus Group Participant3 and Quote
Korean
Participant D: "The word limited seems most appropriate. However, between the two
words, little is better and understandable. Since research is continuously
conducted and the results may change at any time, and there are various
studies in the world, the word "limited" conveys the feeling that not much
analysis has been done on the existing research."
Hmong
Participant G: 'They're both very similar. For "little" means it's not necessarily every day
the act of finding the research. However, for "there's limited research", is a
little different, because there isn't anyone dedicated that would find out
about how the fishes are doing."
Cambodian
Participant E: "The word "Little" is not suitable to use. The word 'Limited' is suitable to
use in this context."
Native American
Group 1
Participant A: "1 chose 'limited' because 1 feel like 1 associate little with size and limited
with an amount if that makes sense [...] Just some has been done, just not
a lot. Not enough to be definitive. [There are] no conclusive numbers."
Native American
Group 2
Participant B: "1 feel like little is [not giving] a conclusive statement. Like probably based
on just a quick research, but limited is kind of okay. It might be [limited],
but we are conclusive of our results. So that's what 1 see. So, the little is
not conclusive, while the 'limited' is like giving a conclusive statement
based on the data they have."
Cantonese
Participant B: "If you use English to translate the sentence, then it has no problem. But if
you just read it off in Chinese then the sentences have different
meaning[s]. The first one means few research is done and the second one
means there is limited amount of research to support the study."
Haitian Creole
Participant B: "1 chose 'limited' because it made more sense to me when 1 was reading the
images."
Thai
Participant F: "1 agree with [Participant H] because the word 'little of work' for consumers
may mean that the data may not be sufficient to build confidence whether
this data is true or not, but the word 'limited' may have had a lot of
research done, and the limitations may be related to the type of fish or the
place where the fish are raised or caught."
Participant H: "Between a few pieces of work for me refers to either little research or a
small number of research pieces, but for the word 'limited,' it may mean
there's been a lot of research, but there's a framework for the research
that's just this, but there can be a lot of research."
Polish
Participant A: "1 chose the option Little because the whole sentence is simply more
sensible. Not just words. Little, it's just about the whole."
Participant G: "1 chose little, somehow it gives me more trust, because 1 know that there
may be more of these studies in the future."
80
-------
Focus Group
Participant3 and Quote
Japanese
Participant A: "I chose 'little.' With 'limited/ I thought the kanji (Japanese character) was
too hard."
Participant B: "I chose 'little.' In general, it is easy to read"
Participant J: "Saying 'little' sounds like, sort of difference between a half-entity and a
half-fool after all. I thought 'little' was a rather negative expression. And
'limited' is 'limited,' a positive expression that there is something, although
it is limited. I chose 'limited' because I wanted to vote for the affirmative. I
also agree that 'little' is easier to read as a word and in the form of writing
as hiragana."
Laotian
Participant C: ""Limited" is hard to understand."
Tagalog
Participant C: "And I chose 'limited' because it seems more credible to use that word
compared to 'little' as using little might make the image seem less credible
when trying to attract people's attention."
Participant E: 'The one I chose is 'limited' because when you listen to it, 'limited' sounds a
bit better compared to 'little.' The word 'little' seems a bit plain."
Participant I: "Same with [Participant E], I've chosen the 'limited' one because I can
understand it faster and simpler to understand."
Spanish
Participant H: "Maybe because little is easier to understand than limited. And also,
because limited would be like they can't... And [little] sounds better in
context."
Participant I: "Evaluated is the right way to use it [...] because they are supposed to be
doing a study. So, they are already evaluating the information that is being
given [...] and assessed only is like we are going with the same thing that
not, which [...] is not the way to say it."
Participant I: "Limited, for me, at least is a more formal way of saying little."
English
Participant B: "I think [little] because there are still more research to be done. While
'limited' means there could be more research that should be done but they
just choose to do limited research. [...] 'Limited' means the research has a
limit that it could be continued, but no, they choose to stop there, but
means they are still yet to deep into this issue."
Participant G: "[Limited] just sounds more official."
aThe participants' names were blinded using letters and only a selection of key quotes is
presented in this table, and therefore, does not necessarily reflect the opinions of all
participants.
81
-------
After the poll #9 questions were answered and discussed, the participants were asked to
indicate where they would expect to see the image and its information. The participants
indicated:
• Fish Markets
• Packaging
• Fishing licenses
• Markets
• Street
posters/Billboards
• Stores (near fish)
• Fisheries
• Restaurants
• Bait shops
• Fishing/hunting
camps
• Doctor's office
• Hospital/Medical
Clinics
• Church
Schools (e.g. elementary schools)
Social media
Written publications (e.g., magazines, newsletters,
newspapers)
Nutritional Education
Occupational Education
Transport hubs (bus stop, metro station)
Government guidelines (e.g. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) website)
Electronic communications (e.g. apps)
Television
Facebook
TikTok
P interest
YouTube
Google
Participants in the Korean-speaking focus group suggested placing the image in places where
many people would see it, including flyers at local markets or when issuing fishing licenses.
An overwhelming majority of Native American English-speaking participants indicated that
information about fish might be found at a fishing dock or pier.
All Laotian-speaking participants, an overwhelming majority of Korean-, Cambodian-, Haitian
Creole-, Polish-, Tagalog-, Spanish-, and English-speaking participants, half of Japanese-speaking
participants, and under half of the Hmong- and Portuguese-speaking participants said they
trusted the EPA as a source of health information. Similarly, all Cambodian-, Amharic-, Laotian-,
Tagalog-, and Spanish-speaking participants, an overwhelming majority of Cantonese-, Thai-,
Polish-, Japanese-, and English-speaking participants, and over half of Haitian Creole- and
Portuguese-speaking participants said they trusted the information that government agencies
provide about the health impacts of eating fish.
However, an overwhelming majority of Korean-speaking participants and over half of Hmong-
speaking participants did not agree or disagree when asked if they trusted the information
about the health impacts of eating fish provided by government agencies.
82
-------
4. Preliminary Conclusions
4.1. General Conclusions
Images to convey which fish parts should and should not be eaten were drafted in multiple
languages. Focus groups of primary audiences evaluated the effectiveness of the images and
different phrases. Some key pieces of feedback regarding the images are:
• The preferred image among each of the focus groups was the "fish with QR code."
• Each focus group provided suggestions on the images to better improve ease of
understanding.
• The Hmong- and Cambodian-speaking participants suggested greater spacing between
words. Similarly, the Thai-speaking participants suggested increasing the text size for
better readability.
• The Cantonese- and Korean-speaking participants suggested using brighter colors. The
Haitian Creole- and Thai-speaking participants suggested that green and red be used to
convey safe and unsafe parts to eat, respectively, since these colors are attributable to
good and bad. One Cantonese participant suggested incorporating patterns to
accommodate people who are color blind.
o The EPA considered this feedback. Because the existing fish image colors meet
508 compliance guidelines, the EPA determined that further color changes were
not needed.
• The Native American English-speaking (Group 1) participants suggested that fish eggs be
included in the image.
• Some Bengali-speaking participants found the fish image messaging to be unclear. One
Bengali-speaking participant felt scared by the contents of the image.
• Amharic-speaking participants indicated that the fish image messaging was clear and
the individual icons within the image attracted attention.
• Polish-speaking participants thought the color scheme of the fish image as a whole was
unappealing and even unprofessional.
• Japanese-speaking participants thought the fish image did not correctly capture how
Japanese people consume fish.
• Portuguese-speaking participants indicated that the information in the image was
helpful, but the image itself was not visually compelling.
83
-------
• Although Laotian-speaking participants thought that the image was useful, they
described the value of eating fish parts that the image marked as throw away.
• Tagalog-speaking participants thought the image clearly signaled which parts of the fish
are safe to eat. One Tagalog-speaking participant thought that brighter colors would be
more appealing. Another Tagalog-speaking participant suggested that the image should
explain why certain fish parts should be thrown away.
• Spanish-speaking participants thought that the image taught them which fish parts are
healthier than others.
• English-speaking participants thought that the separation of different fish parts and the
different colors made the diagram much easier to understand. Several participants
added that the image provided new information that they had not previously
considered.
The discussions regarding the phrasing within the fish image varied between focus groups. The
phrases that the EPA selected for each focus group and the key evidence to support that
selection are detailed below in Section 4.1.1. The preferred images with selected phrasings for
all focus groups are displayed below in Section 4.1.2.
84
-------
4.1.1. Phrase Selection by Focus Group
4.1.1.1. Hmong-speaking Focus Group
Figure 16 (Section 4.1.2 below) shows the fish images with phrases selected by the EPA in
English to be used for the Hmong translation. The phrase selections are detailed below with key
evidence to support the selection:
> Phrase selected by the EPA for the "THROW AWAY" and "EAT" text boxes: Generally,
studies have found that these parts have higher/lower amounts of chemical
contamination.
• The Hmong-speaking focus group was evenly divided between the "research" and
"studies" option. However, the "studies" option was selected because participants
remarked that the "studies" option was easiest to understand.
> Phrase selected by the EPA for the "AVOID EATING" text box: Few studies have evaluated
the amount of chemical contamination of these parts.
• Over half of the Hmong-speaking participants preferred "evaluated" instead of
"assessed" in the remaining language option, with one participant indicating that
"evaluate" is a simpler and more concrete word.
• Over half of the Hmong-speaking participants selected "little" over "limited." with one
participant adding that both "little" and "limited" are very similar. However, since
participants indicated that "studies" was the easiest to understand, the "few studies"
phrase was selected instead of "little research."
4.1.1.2. Cambodian-speaking Focus Group
Figure 17 (Section 4.1.2 below) shows the fish images with phrases selected by the EPA in
English to be used for the Cambodian translation. The phrase selections are detailed below with
key evidence to support the selection:
> Phrase selected by the EPA for the "THROW AWAY" and "EAT" text boxes: Generally,
research has found that these parts have higher/lower amounts of chemical
contamination.
• The overwhelming majority of Cambodian-speaking participants preferred the
"research" option.
85
-------
> Phrase selected by the EPA for the "AVOID EATING" text box: Limited research has
evaluated the amount of chemical contamination of these parts.
• An overwhelming majority of Cambodian-speaking participants preferred the "limited"
and "evaluated" language options.
• The overwhelming majority of Cambodian-speaking participants preferred the
"research" option, indicating that the word "research" implies that a great level of effort
has been made to analyze and synthesize information.
4.1.1.3. Korean-speaking Focus Group
Figure 18 (Section 4.1.2 below) shows the fish images with phrases selected by the EPA in
English to be used for the Korean translation. The phrase selections are detailed below with key
evidence to support the selection:
> Phrase selected by the EPA for the "THROW AWAY" and "EAT" text boxes: Generally,
studies have found that these parts have higher/lower amounts of chemical
contamination.
• The overwhelming majority of Korean-speaking participants preferred the "generally"
language because it was clearer and easier to understand.
• The overwhelming majority of the Korean-speaking focus group participants preferred
the "studies" option in the text under the fish image because it sounded more
authoritative.
> Phrase selected by the EPA for the "AVOID EATING" text box: Few studies have assessed
the amount of chemical contamination of these parts.
• Even though over half of Korean-speaking participants preferred the phrasing "limited
research" rather than "little research." the EPA selected "few studies" for this phrasing
since all Korean-speaking participants preferred the "studies" option because it sounded
more authoritative.
• Korean-speaking participants were split in their choice between "assessed" and
"evaluated." The Korean-speaking participants agreed that "assessed" is more common
and easier to understand in their language.
86
-------
4.1.1.4. Native American English-speaking (Groups 1 and 2)
Figure 19 (Section 4.1.2 below) shows the fish images with phrases selected by the EPA in
English to be used for the images for Native American audiences. The phrase selections are
detailed below with key evidence to support the selection:
> Phrase selected by the EPA for the "THROW AWAY" and "EAT" text boxes: These parts
generally have higher/lower levels of chemical contamination.
• The two English-speaking Native American focus groups were split in their opinions
between the "generally have." "research." and "studies" options.
• The "generally have" option was selected since over half of the total Native American
participants thought it was the easiest to understand.
• One Native American English-speaking (Group 1) participant commented that "generally
have" felt persuasive and was easier to understand. Participants in both focus groups
remarked that the language could be interpreted as misinformation in certain contexts.
The verbiage of "generally have" could aid in accounting for possible exceptions.
> Phrase selected by the EPA for the "AVOID EATING" text box: Limited research has
evaluated the amount of chemical contamination of these parts.
• Both Native American English-speaking focus groups preferred the words "limited" and
"evaluated."
• Participants from both focus groups stated that "evaluated" indicated a more
quantitative result than the word option of "assessed."
• Between the two Native American English-speaking focus groups, the participants were
split between "studies" and "research." and one Group 2 participant event indicated
that the options could be used interchangeably. Over half of the Native American
English-speaking (Group 1) participants chose the "studies" option and thought
"studies" sounded friendlier and "research" sounded more official. Over half of Native
American English-speaking (Group 2) participants selected the "research" option,
because they thought "research" seemed broader and more in-depth than just
"studies." The EPA selected "Limited research" based on their preference for the word
"limited."
87
-------
4.1.1.5. Cantonese-speaking Focus Group
Figure 20 (Section 4.1.2 below) shows the fish images with phrases selected by the EPA in
English to be used for the Cantonese translation. The phrase selections are detailed below with
key evidence to support the selection:
> Phrase selected by the EPA for the "THROW AWAY" and "EAT" text boxes: Generally,
research has found that these parts have higher/lower amounts of chemical
contamination.
• Half of the Cantonese-speaking focus group preferred the "research" option, and none
of the participants thought it was the hardest language option to understand.
> Phrase selected by the EPA for the "AVOID EATING" text box: "Limited research has
evaluated the amount of chemical contamination of these parts."
• Over half of participants favored the "limited" language option because it was more
grammatically correct.
4.1.1.6. Haitian Creole-speaking Focus Group
Figure 21 (Section 4.1.2 below) shows the fish images with phrases selected by the EPA in
English to be used for the Haitian Creole translation. The phrase selections are detailed below
with key evidence to support the selection:
> Phrase selected by the EPA for the "THROW AWAY" and "EAT" text boxes: These parts
generally have higher/lower amounts of chemical contamination.
• Half of the participants agreed that "generally have" is the easiest to understand
• Participants universally agreed that "tend to have" is the most difficult to understand.
> Phrase selected by the EPA for the "AVOID EATING" text box: Limited studies have
evaluated the amount of chemical contamination of these parts.
• The overwhelming majority of participants agreed that the "limited" option is the
easiest to understand and conveyed the correct meaning.
• Over half favored the "studies" option as opposed to the "research" option.
• Note that evaluated/assessed have the same translation in Haitian Creole and the
question about these terms was not asked to this focus group.
88
-------
4.1.1.7. Thai-speaking Focus Group
Figure 22 (Section 4.1.2 below) shows the fish images with phrases selected by the EPA in
English to be used for the Thai translation. The phrase selections are detailed below with key
evidence to support the selection:
> Phrase selected by the EPA for the "THROW AWAY" and "EAT" text boxes: Generally,
research has found that these parts have higher/lower amounts of chemical
contamination.
• All participants agreed the "research" option was the most credible.
> Phrase selected by the EPA for the "AVOID EATING" text box: Limited research has
evaluated the amount of chemical contamination of these parts.
• The overwhelming majority of participants chose the "limited" and "evaluated" options.
4.1.1.8. Bengali-speaking Focus Group
Figure 23 (Section 4.1.2 below) shows the fish images with phrases selected by the EPA in
English to be used for the Bengali translation. The phrase selections are detailed below with key
evidence to support the selection:
> Phrase selected by the EPA for the "THROW AWAY" and "EAT" text boxes: Generally,
research has found that these parts have higher/lower amounts of chemical
contamination.
• The Bengali-speaking focus group participants were generally split across the phrase
options. Half of Bengali-speaking participants found the "research" option the easiest to
understand during poll #6, but in poll #5, over half of Bengali-speaking participants
preferred the "studies" option. However, during the commentary, one participant
indicated that "research" is more in-depth, and another participant remarked that
"research" is in-depth and more credible that "studies."
• Under half of Bengali-speaking participants selected the "generally have" option.
However, during the commentary, a Bengali-speaking participant indicated that
'generally' is synonymous with usually, which is preferable to them.
89
-------
> Phrase selected by the EPA for the "AVOID EATING" text box: Limited research has
assessed the amount of chemical contamination of these parts.
• Over half of Bengali-speaking participants preferred the word "limited."
• Note that evaluated/assessed have the same translation in Bengali and the question
about these terms was not asked to this focus group.
4.1.1.9. Amharic-speaking Focus Group
Figure 24 (Section 4.1.2 below) shows the fish images with phrases selected by the EPA in
English to be used for the Amharic translation. The phrase selections are detailed below with
key evidence to support the selection:
> Phrase selected by the EPA for the "THROW AWAY" and "EAT" text boxes: Generally,
studies have found that these parts have higher/lower amounts of chemical
contamination.
• An overwhelming majority of Amharic-speaking participants selected the "generally
have" option.
• All Amharic-speaking participants preferred the "studies" option compared to the
"research" option.
> Phrase selected by the EPA for the "AVOID EATING" text box; Limited research has
assessed the amount of chemical contamination of these parts.
• Amharic-speaking participants were split between "evaluated" and "assessed." but
during their commentary, the participants indicated that "evaluated" means that
something has not been finalized, whereas "assessed" suggests that something is
certain, indicating preference towards "assessed."
• Over half of Amharic-speaking participants preferred the word "limited."
4.1.1.10. Polish-speaking Focus Group
Figure 25 (Section 4.1.2 below) shows the fish images with phrases selected by the EPA in
English to be used for the Polish translation. The phrase selections are detailed below with key
evidence to support the selection:
> Phrase selected by the EPA for the "THROW AWAY" and "EAT" text boxes: These parts tend
to have higher/lower levels of chemical contamination.
90
-------
• The Polish-speaking focus group participants typically agreed with one another. Over
half of Polish-speaking participants preferred the "tend to have" option as opposed to
the "generally have" option.
• The overwhelming majority of Polish-speaking participants selected the "tend to have"
option as the phrase that is the easiest to understand. However, several participants
remarked that the easiest term is not necessarily the most convincing term. Polish-
speaking participants were divided as to whether "research." "studies." "tend." or
"generally" was the most difficult to understand.
> Phrase selected by the EPA for the "AVOID EATING" text box: Few studies have assessed
the amount of chemical contamination of these parts.
• An overwhelming majority of Polish-speaking participants preferred the "studies" option
compared to the "research" option, with one participant indicating that "studies" is
more scientific and increases trust in the information.
• An overwhelming majority of Polish-speaking participants selected the word "assessed."
suggesting that "assessed" was more definitive and scientific.
• An overwhelming majority of Polish-speaking participants selected "little research"
rather than "limited research." However, the selection of the above phrasing was driven
by the fact that the overwhelming majority of Polish-speaking participants preferred the
"studies" option.
4.1.1.11. Japanese-speaking Focus Group
Figure 26 (Section 4.1.2 below) shows the fish images with phrases selected by the EPA in
English to be used for the Japanese translation. The phrase selections are detailed below with
key evidence to support the selection:
> Phrase selected by the EPA for the "THROW AWAY" and "EAT" text boxes: These parts
generally have higher/lower levels of chemical contamination.
• The Japanese-speaking focus group participants were often split among the language
options for the "THROW AWAY" and "EAT" sections of the fish image. Half of Japanese-
speaking participants selected the "generally have" option as the easiest word or phrase
to understand rather than "tend to have." "research." or "studies." The remaining
Japanese-speaking participants were split between the "tend to have" and "research"
options. Japanese-speaking participants were also divided as to which of the four
language options was the most difficult to understand. Under half of Japanese-speaking
participants selected "research" as the most difficult language option, and few
91
-------
participants found "tend to have." "generally have." or "studies" as the hardest
language choices to understand.
> Phrase selected by the EPA for the "AVOID EATING" text box: Little research has evaluated
the amount of chemical contamination of these parts.
• The Japanese-speaking focus group participants were often divided among the language
options for the "AVOID EATING" section of the image. Considering these often-split
opinions, the selection of the above phrasing was driven by the fact that the
overwhelming majority of participants preferred the words "little" and "evaluated."
while Japanese-speaking participants were evenly divided between the "research" and
"studies" options and indicated that both word choices were similar.
• One participant indicated that the Japanese character for "limited" (PJ!5e!) was more
difficult to read compared to the Japanese character for "little" L).
4.1.1.12. Portuguese-speaking Focus Group
Figure 27 (Section 4.1.2 below) shows the fish images with phrases selected by the EPA in
English to be used for the Portuguese translation. The phrase selections are detailed below with
key evidence to support the selection:
> Phrase selected by the EPA for the "THROW AWAY" and "EAT" text boxes: Generally,
studies have found that these parts have higher/lower amounts of chemical
contamination.
• The overwhelming majority of Portuguese-speaking participants chose the "studies"
option.
> Phrase selected by the EPA for the "AVOID EATING" text box: Limited studies have
evaluated the amount of chemical contamination of these parts.
• One Portuguese-speaking participant commented that "evaluated" means that detail
was provided for every little part. Another Portuguese-speaking participant indicated
that there is no difference between the two terms.
• The overwhelming majority of Portuguese-speaking participants, preferred the word
"limited."
92
-------
4.1.1.13. Laotian-speaking Focus Group
Figure 28 (Section 4.1.2 below) shows the fish images with phrases selected by the EPA in
English to be used for the Laotian translation. The phrase selections are detailed below with key
evidence to support the selection:
> Phrase selected by the EPA for the "THROW AWAY" and "EAT" text boxes: Generally,
research has found that these parts have higher/lower amounts of chemical
contamination.
• The overwhelming majority of Laotian-speaking participants selected the "research"
option compared to the "studies" option. Laotian-speaking participants thought that
"research" should occur first since it involves gathering data and "studies" should occur
after "research."
> Phrase selected by the EPA for the "AVOID EATING" text box: Little research has assessed
the amount of chemical contamination of these parts.
• An overwhelming majority of Laotian-speaking participants selected the word
"assessed". Although Laotian-speaking participants chose the word "assessed." several
participants noted that "assessed" is an uncertain term.
• Over half of Laotian-speaking participants selected the word "little."
4.1.1.14. Tagalog-speaking Focus Group
Figure 29 (Section 4.1.2 below) shows the fish images with phrases selected by the EPA in
English to be used for the Tagalog translation. Tagalog was also tested during the 2023 series of
focus groups; the results in 2024 are consistent with the results from 2023 (Appendix S). The
phrase selections are detailed below with key evidence to support the selection:
> Phrase selected by the EPA for the "THROW AWAY" and "EAT" text boxes: Generally,
studies have found that these parts have higher/lower amounts of chemical
contamination.
• Under half of Tagalog-speaking participants selected the "generally have" option.
However, participants focused on discussing the merits of "research" versus "studies."
• Half of Tagalog-speaking participants selected "research" while the other half chose
"studies." Tagalog-speaking participants indicated that "studies" is easier to understand
than "research." which is a more specialized and complex word in Tagalog. One
participant noted that most people will not understand the term "research" in Tagalog.
93
-------
This same participant preferred a mix of English and Tagalog, known as Taglish.
"Studies" was selected since it is easier to understand in Tagalog.
• One Tagalog-speaking participant thought that "generally have" language encourages
someone to continue consuming fish as they typically do, without regard to safety
information, whereas "research" provides a tangible reason to change fish consumption
habits.
> Phrase selected by the EPA for the "AVOID EATING" text box: Limited studies have
evaluated the amount of chemical contamination of these parts.
• All Tagalog-speaking participants selected "evaluated" and noted that it is easier to
understand and more common in everyday language. The overwhelming majority of
Tagalog-speaking participants preferred "limited" and indicated that "limited" is more
credible and easier to understand than "little."
• Several Tagalog-speaking participants indicated that "studies" is easier to understand in
Tagalog as opposed to "research." which involves more challenging words.
4.1.1.15. Spanish-speaking Focus Group
Figure 30 (Section 4.1.2 below) shows the fish images with phrases selected by the EPA in
English to be used for the Spanish translation. The phrase selections are detailed below with
key evidence to support the selection:
> Phrase selected by the EPA for the "THROW AWAY" and "EAT" text boxes: Generally,
studies have found that these parts have higher/lower amounts of chemical
contamination.
• Under half of Spanish-speaking participants in the 2023 focus group thought that
"studies" was the easiest to understand in poll 6, however, this option still received the
most votes compared to the other options (Appendix S). In 2024, half of Spanish-
speaking participants selected the "generally have" option and under half of Spanish-
speaking participants preferred the "studies" option. Considering the 2023 focus group
results in combination with the 2024 results, the phrase "Generally, studies have found
that these parts have higher/lower amounts of chemical contamination" was selected.
However, "generally have" and "studies" may both be acceptable.
94
-------
> Phrase selected by the EPA for the "AVOID EATING" text box: Few studies have evaluated
the amount of chemical contamination of these parts.
• 2023 Spanish-speaking focus group participants selected "studies" as the term that was
the easiest to understand (Appendix S). 2024 Spanish-speaking focus group participants
were split between "research" and "studies." and indicated that "studies" is based on
evidence and is a more convincing term.
• An overwhelming majority of Spanish-speaking participants from the 2024 focus group
chose the word "little." 2024 participants thought that "little" is easier to understand
than "limited" and sounds more appropriate in context. The phrase "few studies" was
selected to represent the opinions of the Spanish-speaking focus group, primarily driven
by the evidence described above demonstrating that participants found "studies" to be
a more convincing term.
4.1.1.16. English-speaking Focus Group
Figure 31 (Section 4.1.2 below) shows the fish images with phrases selected by the EPA in
English. The phrase selections are detailed below with key evidence to support the selection:
> Phrase selected by the EPA for the "THROW AWAY" and "EAT" text boxes: Generally,
studies have found that these parts have higher/lower amounts of chemical
contamination.
• English-speaking participants in the 2023 focus group thought that "studies" was the
easiest to understand in poll 6 (Appendix S). Moreover, not a single English-speaking
participant in the 2023 focus group selected "studies" as the hardest term to
understand. In both the 2023 and 2024 focus groups, English-speaking participants also
preferred "studies" compared to "research" in poll 5. One English-speaking participant
in the 2024 focus group added that "studies" implies that "research" has been
conducted. Thus, the phrase "Generally, studies have found that these parts have
higher/lower amounts of chemical contamination" was selected.
> Phrase selected by the EPA for the "AVOID EATING" text box: Few studies have evaluated
the amount of chemical contamination of these parts.
• English-speaking participants opted for the word "studies" when given the choice
between "studies" and "research" in poll 5 in the 2024 focus group. One English-
speaking participant added that "studies" is typically carried out by experts whereas
anyone can do "research." English-speaking participants in the 2023 focus group also
preferred "studies." and indicated that "studies" was more scientific and specific,
whereas "research" was more general or subjective.
95
-------
• The overwhelming majority of English-speaking participants selected the word "limited"
over "little" in poll 9. One English-speaking participant thought that "limited" sounded
more official. Although "limited" was selected by the participants, the phrase "few
studies" will be used since "limited studies" is not typically used in spoken English.
• All English-speaking participants selected the word "evaluated" compared to "assessed"
in poll 8. English-speaking participants thought that "evaluated" implies that testing has
occurred, resulting in a conclusion. Thus, the phrase, "Few studies have evaluated the
amount of chemical contamination of these parts" was selected.
96
-------
4.1.2. Phrase Selections in Fish Images in English
A) Hmong Translation
B) English Translation
KEV NOJ NTSES UA KOJ MUAJ DAG ZOG ZOO
TAUM KOJ NOJ THWJ YA NTSES TWG!
/DAIM TSEEI
NQAIJ
f
J^CUAM POVTSEG
lb tswm ntxim li, Txoj kev
kawm tau pom tias cov feem
no muaj kua paug ntawm no
siab dua
|| NOJ
lb txwm ntxim li, Txoj kev
kawm tau pom cov feem no
muaj cov kua paug tsawg dua.
^^TSISTXHOB NOJ
Tsis tau muaj ntau cov tshawb
nrhiav saib pom cov kua paug
nyob hauv cov feem no
PLABHNYUV DAIM TAWV
JOB HAU TUS NTSES
V QHOV ROG
DAIM TSEEM NQAIJ
THOOJ NQAIJ NTSES
POB TXHA KO TW
COV TIS
V
Mus tshawb fawb hauv cov koom haum ntses kom pab
koj xaiv tus ntses cov twg zoo thiab nyab xeeb rau koj
noj, qhia koj noj li ca li cas, thiab noj ntau npaum cas.
[insert website to more information here]
[insert
QR code
here]
EATING FISH IS HEALTHY
WHEN YOU EAT THE RIGHT PARTS!
(3°a
( a
XlfTN 1
UJJ THROW AWAY
II"1
CU) AVOID EATING
Generally, studies have found that
these parts have higher amounts
of chemical contamination.
Generally, studies have found that
these parts have lower amounts
of chemical contamination.
Few studies have evaluated the
amount of chemical contamination
of these parts.
ORGANS SKIN
FILLET
BONES TAIL
HEAD FAT
V
FISH STEAK
FINS
Choose fish wisely by checking local fish
advisories for information on which fish are safe to
eat, how often to eat them, and the amount to eat.
[insert website to more information here]
[insert
QR code
here]
Figure 16. Preferred image of Hmong-speaking participants: A) Hmong translation and B) English translation
97
-------
A) Cambodian translation
pnsufifTi si ^jfcn s s^n n cu
tsltn cuta nit EtnpiMmiitfTiRtci ptta cut Ketetf!
c5 a L L»u '
C3>
^ LA
/
tens ten ru
tsisisl smrtSgj
c?i tgnsiaisiHiB R[umsmj
untuaimashitsiai
||ujt.Frm
ciistsi fTiqwiqewcTisiPi
tUJETI fnjtffn
\ s pn iun rugi j^us-iucsi fc3i
tcJ] wfiia
mj[fini|t?iJtrispi^fsicns fitu
fnlHuTtn curtspniun cuctf^trl s
fefnsntatssi
p£pw sim
suTna
W1QW9
HStU
»' <31
tp.cii
itSwiTwt^iaiujSjinfaimtufisfmSromruFmHfiT^tJcuH'is
Li Li fU 0 cJ Li EJ Lj c=»
witJiucfin«uisc3'iL^njTis:tanjunfTifncns hicsuTwtipkcjis
mfnnriuusarri saHiaotu^^c^sossusisi
[insert website to more information here]
[insert
QR code
here]
B) English translation
EATING FISH IS HEALTHY
WHEN YOU EAT THE RIGHT PARTS!
THROW AWAY
Generally, research has found that
these parts have higher amounts
of chemical contamination.
IIEAT
Generally, research has found that
these parts have lower amounts
of chemical contamination.
(^) AVOID EATING
Limited research has evaluated the
amount of chemical contamination
of these parts.
ORGANS SKIN
HEAD FAT
V
FILLET
FISH STEAK
BONES TAIL
FINS
Choose fish wisely by checking local fish
advisories for information on which fish are safe to
eat, how often to eat them, and the amount to eat.
[insert website to more information here]
[insert
QR code
here]
Figure 17. Preferred image of Cambodian-speaking participants: A) Cambodian translation and B) English translation
98
-------
A) Korean translation
B) English translation
W|o| ^|fj" [£[]
£0\\ #^L|CM
/
|j| *ia|Al|£
<3^ sawi °|6^
01210 ¥?|0|l^ Cj £.» ofo|
SW£
^ THROW AWAY
Generally, studies have found that
these parts have higher amounts
of chemical contamination.
I1EAT
Generally, studies have found that
these parts have lower amounts
of chemical contamination.
AVOID EATING
Few studies have assessed the
amount of chemical contamination
of these parts.
ORGANS SKIN
HEAD FAT
V
FILLET
FISH STEAK
BONES TAIL
FINS
y
Choose fish wisely by checking local fish
advisories for information on which fish are safe to
eat, how often to eat them, and the amount to eat.
[insert website to more information here]
[insert
QR code
here]
Figure 18. Preferred image of Korean-speaking participants: A) Korean translation and B) English translation
99
-------
A) English translation for Native American audiences
EATING FISH IS HEALTHY
WHEN YOU EAT THE RIGHT PARTS!
• -
f
_ A
ri THROW AWAY
11 eat
qT\ avoid eating
These parts generally have higher
levels of chemical contamination.
These parts generally have lower
levels of chemical contamination.
Limited research has evaluated the
amount of chemical contamination
of these parts.
ORGANS SKIN
FILLET
BONES TAIL
HEAD FAT
V
FISH STEAK
FINS
Choose fish wisely by checking local fish
advisories for information on which fish are safe to
eat, how often to eat them, and the amount to eat.
[insert website to more information here]
[insert
QR code
here]
Figure 19. Preferred image of Native American English-speaking participants: A) English translation for Native American audiences
100
-------
A) Cantonese translation
r
ill ©3 J#
it
lit
ilttSFX&aajBtttttt
(Jpigftut;
V
m&fcUn
mm
ft-ftR HE
fctt
y
ng > - mWzSr'y"
[insert website to more information here]
[insert
QR code
here]
B) English translation
EATING FISH IS HEALTHY
WHEN YOU EAT THE RIGHT PARTS!
" 11
2)
^ THROW AWAY
Generally, research has found that
these parts have higher amounts
of chemical contamination.
I1EAT
Generally, research has found that
these parts have lower amounts
of chemical contamination.
AVOID EATING
Limited research has evaluated the
amount of chemical contamination
of these parts.
ORGANS SKIN
HEAD FAT
V
FILLET
FISH STEAK
BONES TAIL
FINS
y
Choose fish wisely by checking local fish
advisories for information on which fish are safe to
eat, how often to eat them, and the amount to eat.
[insert website to more information here]
[insert
QR code
here]
Figure 20. Preferred image of Cantonese-speaking participants: A) Cantonese translation and B) English translation
101
-------
A) Haitian Creole translation
MANJE PWASON BON POU SANTE
LE OU MANJE BON PATIYO!
(3d«
c
||JETE
Pati sa yo anjeneral genyen pi
wo nivo kontaminasyon
chimik ladan yo
|| MANJE
Pati sa yo anjeneral genyen pi
ba nivo kontaminasyon
chimik ladan yo
EVITE MANJE
Etid ki evalye kantite
kontaminasyon chimik pati sa
yo genyen ladan yo limite
OGAN PO
TET GRES
V
FILE PWASON
STEK PWANSON
ZO KE
NAJWA
Chwazi pwason avek prekosyon/ ak sajes toujou tcheke konsey
otorite lokal yo pou enfdmasyon sou ki pwason ke ou kapab
manje san pwoblem, konbyen fwa ou kapab manje yo, ak kantite
ou kapab manje.
[insert website to more information here]
[insert
QR code
here]
B) English translation
EATING FISH IS HEALTHY
WHEN YOU EAT THE RIGHT PARTS!
2>
^ THROW AWAY
These parts generally have higher
levels of chemical contamination.
I1EAT
These parts generally have lower
levels of chemical contamination.
AVOID EATING
Limited studies have evaluated the
amount of chemical contamination
of these parts.
ORGANS SKIN
HEAD FAT
V
FILLET
FISH STEAK
BONES TAIL
FINS
y
Choose fish wisely by checking local fish
advisories for information on which fish are safe to
eat, how often to eat them, and the amount to eat.
[insert website to more information here]
[insert
QR code
here]
Figure 21. Preferred image of Haitian Creole-speaking participants: A) Haitian Creole translation and B) English translation
102
-------
A) Thai translation
B) English translation
fiT? uf'TnntJ iduUWkj^uri o
m'SMNslwiSti
il u itJ ou^j avj a t5ifi wlu'ss efu vi a-aniT
||
tfutfimJaniMriniiihKmfUfrvj
iJ ui^ 3u«u Ovj ?>">'J ipi ij
-------
A) Bengali translation
B) English translation
W \»ii*Tm >if5
i
c^i^t orairr Sfbvs
¦STTtjT^o, ^ilii
5c*7 HI.3I gllKP I
W5f
¦xn«fT
II
*JT3TIT SfBvo
7TT5ji11 Rsi TrnaT «nra i
Ri»wB
TJTC^?T
*fT<3"5TT jjIwnr^eTr
.3^ Wn^T^QCSlices
^
-------
A) Amharic translation
rrtT01? yaj-::
^hhA^SP^ hS/V** ti+^n-!
(ki»Hs pmnA* P°nl ft? (im^A» Mno n*+?
PUnhA -flhA*
*V}A¥a>. f?**
PfcVHtn USA-* Ph."l»lA
•nhA=h "^nm P+a>rtt-
9»C9n°n
PakhT tlfA-*
t*">¥A:h h-fl
V
h'M-fc PaxriA^ P"^ hp (£A.)
p^n hp
THROW AWAY
Generally, studies have found that
these parts have higher amounts
of chemical contamination.
I1EAT
Generally, studies have found that
these parts have lower amounts
of chemical contamination.
AVOID EATING
Limited research has assessed the
amount of chemical contamination
of these parts.
ORGANS SKIN
HEAD FAT
V
FILLET
FISH STEAK
BONES TAIL
FINS
y
Choose fish wisely by checking local fish
advisories for information on which fish are safe to
eat, how often to eat them, and the amount to eat.
[insert website to more information here]
[insert
QR code
here]
Figure 24. Preferred image of Amharic-speaking participants: A) Amharic translation and B) English translation
105
-------
A) Polish translation
B) English translation
JEDZENIE RYB JEST ZDROWE
KIEDY JESZ WLASCIWE CZ^SCI!
EATING FISH IS HEALTHY
WHEN YOU EAT THE RIGHT PARTS!
f
WYRZUC
Te cz^sci majg na ogot wyzszy
poziom zanieczyszczenia
chemicznego.
|| JEDZ
Te cz?sci majq na ogol nizszy
poziom zanieczyszczenia
chemicznego.
UNIKAJ JEDZENIA
Niewiele badari oszacowalo
stopieri zanieczyszczenia
chemicznego tych cz$sci.
WN^TRZNOSCI SKORA
GtOWA TLUSZCZ
V
FILET
STEK
OSCI OGON
PLETWY
( a
fffj THROW AWAY
|| EAT
rMj AVOID EATING
These parts tend to have higher
levels of chemical contamination.
These parts tend to have lower
levels of chemical contamination.
Few studies have assessed the
amount of chemical contamination of
these parts.
ORGANS SKIN
FILLET
BONES TAIL
HEAD FAT
FISH STEAK
FINS
V
y
Mqdrze wybieraj ryby do spozycia. Aby uzyskac wi^cej
informacji o tym, ktore ryby sq bezpieczne do spozycia,
jak cz^sto je jesc oraz jakq ilosc ryb mozna bezpiecznie
spozywac, zawsze sprawdzaj lokalne zalecenia.
[insert website to more information here]
[insert
QR code
here]
Choose fish wisely by checking local fish advisories
for information on which fish are safe to eat, how
often to eat them, and the amount to eat.
[insert website to more information here]
[insert
QR code
here]
Figure 25. Preferred image of Polish-speaking participants: A) Polish translation and B) English translation
106
-------
A) Japanese translation
B) English translation
EATING FISH IS HEALTHY
WHEN YOU EAT THE RIGHT PARTS!
[insert
QR code
here]
szumifiift?, mm
[insert website to more information here]
[insert
QR code
here]
ORGANS SKIN
HEAD FAT
FILLET
FISH STEAK
BONES TAIL
FINS
Choose fish wisely by checking local fish
advisories for information on which fish are safe to
eat, how often to eat them, and the amount to eat.
[insert website to more information here]
These parts generally have higher
levels of chemical contamination.
These parts generally have lower
levels of chemical contamination.
Little research has evaluated the
amount of chemical contamination
of these parts.
^ THROW AWAY
AVOID EATING
Figure 26. Preferred image of Japanese-speaking participants: A) Japanese translation and B) English translation
107
-------
A) Portuguese translation
B) English translation
CONSUMIR PEIXE E SAUDAVEL
QUANDO VOCE COME AS PARTES CORRETAS!
[insert
QR code
here]
EATING FISH IS HEALTHY
WHEN YOU EAT THE RIGHT PARTS!
\ /
[insert
QR code
here]
VISCERAS PELE
CABECA GORDURA
FILE
BIFE DE PEIXE
OSSOS RABO
BARBATANA
ORGANS SKIN
HEAD FAT
FILLET
FISH STEAK
BONES TAIL
FINS
/
^ DESCARTAR
Geralmente, estudos revelaram
que estas partes possuem
maiores quantidades de
contaminagao quimica.
CONSUMIR
Geralmente, estudos revelaram
que estas partes possuem
menores quantidades de
contaminagao quimica.
Escolha o peixe de forma sabia consultarido alertas locais
de pescados sobre informagoes relativas a seguranga no
consumo, frequencia e quantidade para consumo.
[insert website to more information here]
Choose fish wisely by checking local fish
advisories for information on which fish are safe to
eat, how often to eat them, and the amount to eat.
[insert website to more information here]
j|| THROW AWAY
Generally, studies have found that
these parts have higher amounts
of chemical contamination.
IIEAT
Generally, studies have found that
these parts have lower amounts of
chemical contamination.
AVOID EATING
Limited studies have evaluated the
amount of chemical contamination
of these parts.
EVITAR CONSUMIR
Estudos limitados avaliaram a
quantidade de contaminag3o
quimica dessas partes.
Figure 27. Preferred image of Portuguese-speaking participants: A) Portuguese translation and B) English translation
108
-------
A) Laotian translation
B) English translation
EATING FISH IS HEALTHY
WHEN YOU EAT THE RIGHT PARTS!
f
_ _ \
HI THROW AWAY
1IEAT
AVOID EATING
Generally, research has found that
these parts have higher amounts
of chemical contamination.
Generally, research has found that
these parts have lower amounts
of chemical contamination.
Little research has assessed the
amount of chemical contamination
of these parts.
ORGANS SKIN
FILLET
BONES TAIL
HEAD FAT
v
FISH STEAK
FINS
Choose fish wisely by checking local fish
advisories for information on which fish are safe to
eat, how often to eat them, and the amount to eat.
[insert website to more information here]
[Insert
QR code
here]
Figure 28. Preferred image of Laotian-speaking participants: A) Laotian translation and B) English translation
[Insert
QR code
here]
151)0
iejjU
CtJQU")
§V)U*)
c5ar»J*)6i')5S)stjio')oloajr)')ijr)oor)')cu5«io)cc,ut:
Usotadui-ssirnj, yjixosfejg, ccsos usSjlmuxh-azrtx).
[insert website to more information here]
Eowihoiuccoo, npndoidwocunj
b*> uwnsoixorc'GjjOsojj'mmu
lotiinoiiiccob, m)ncnidwuct3)u
d*> wwsoucunwijusojjour)*)!)
LJuc6ausj*)UCf)A>o*)r>b'').
A
^r)c5uy)*)i)^i)
€)X)w>on UU0UO5O icmooyv)
U-ojj^DsiiuGucCausjTixnjj
e©0i^r>i30ijc6}*m.
109
-------
A) Tagalog translation
B) English translation
EATING FISH IS HEALTHY
WHEN YOU EAT THE RIGHT PARTS!
f
XUTv A
HI THROW AWAY
1IEAT
rMj AVOID EATING
Generally, studies have found that
these parts have higher amounts of
chemical contamination.
Generally, studies have found that
these parts have lower amounts of
chemical contamination.
Limited studies have evaluated the
amount of chemical contamination
of these parts.
ORGANS SKIN
FILLET
BONES TAIL
HEAD FAT
v
FISH STEAK
FINS
Choose fish wisely by checking local fish
advisories for information on which fish are safe to
eat, how often to eat them, and the amount to eat.
[insert website to more information here]
[Insert
QR code
here]
Figure 29. Preferred image of Tagalog-speaking participants: A) Tagalog translation and B) English translation
ANG PAGKAIN NG ISDA AY MALUSOG
KAPAG KUMAIN KA NG TAMANG BAHAGI!
[Insert
QR code
here]
Piliin nang maingat ang isda sa pamamagitan ng pagsuri sa
lokal na mga tagubilin para sa impormasyon kung aling isda
ang ligtas na kainin, gaano kadalas ito kainin, at kung gaano
kadami ang dapat kainin.
[insert website to more information here]
LAMAN LOOB BALAT
ULO TAB A
FILLET NG ISDA
STEAK NG ISDA
TINIK BUNTOT
PALIKPIK
KAININ
Karaniwan, ayon sa pag-aaral
natuklasan na ang mga bahaging
ito ay may mas mababang halaga
ng kemikal na kontaminasyon.
IWASANG KAININ
Limitadong pag-aaral ay nasuri
ang dami ng mga kemikal sa mga
bahaging ito.
(~.il"
^ ITAPON
Karaniwan, ayon sa pag-aaral
natuklasan na ang mga bahaging
ito ay may mas mataas na halaga
ng kemikal na kontaminasyon.
110
-------
A) Spanish translation
B) English translation
jCOMER PESCADO ES SALUDABLE
CUANDO COMES LAS PARTES SEGURAS!
/"
^ TIRAR A LA BASURA
Generalmente, estudios han
encontrado que estas partes
tienen mayores cantidades de
contaminacidn quimica.
|| COMER
Generalmente, estudios han
encontrado que estas partes
tienen menores cantidades de
contaminacibn quimica.
EVITE COMER
Pocos estudios han evaluado
la cantidad de contaminaci6n
quimica de estas partes.
6RGANOS PIEL
CABEZA GRASA
v
FILETE DE PESCADO
HUESOS COLA
ALETAS
>
Elija el pescado sabiamente consultando los
avisos locales para obtener informacion sobre que
pescado es seguro para comer, con que
frecuencia comerlo y la cantidad que debe comer.
[insert website to more information here]
[insert
QR code
here]
EATING FISH IS HEALTHY
WHEN YOU EAT THE RIGHT PARTS!
V •/
THROW AWAY
Generally, studies have found that
these parts have higher amounts
of chemical contamination.
IIEAT
Generally, studies have found that
these parts have lower amounts
of chemical contamination.
AVOID EATING
Few studies have evaluated the
amount of chemical contamination
of these parts.
ORGANS SKIN
HEAD FAT
V
FILLET
FISH STEAK
BONES TAIL
FINS
Choose fish wisely by checking local fish
advisories for information on which fish are safe to
eat, how often to eat them, and the amount to eat.
[insert website to more information here]
[insert
QR code
here]
Figure 30. Preferred image of Spanish-speaking participants: A) Spanish translation and B) English translation
111
-------
A) English translation
EATING FISH IS HEALTHY
WHEN YOU EAT THE RIGHT PARTS!
/
ill THROW AWAY
Generally, studies have found that
these parts have higher amounts
of chemical contamination.
llEaT
Generally, studies have found that
these parts have lower amounts
of chemical contamination.
AVOID EATING
Few studies have evaluated the
amount of chemical contamination
of these parts.
ORGANS SKIN
HEAD FAT
v
FILLET
FISH STEAK
BONES TAIL
FINS
Choose fish wisely by checking local fish
advisories for information on which fish are safe to
eat, how often to eat them, and the amount to eat.
[insert website to more information here]
[insert
QR code
here]
Figure 31. Preferred image of English-speaking participants: A) English translation
112
------- |