Weighing Health Benefit and Health Risk Information when Consuming Sport‐Caught Fish
- 1 December 2003
- journal article
- Published by Wiley in Risk Analysis
- Vol. 23 (6) , 1185-1197
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2003.00392.x
Abstract
Fish consumers may incur benefits and risks from eating fish. Health advisories issued by states, tribes, and other entities typically include advice about how to limit fish consumption or change other behaviors (e.g., fish cleaning or cooking) to reduce health risks from exposure to contaminants. Eating fish, however, may provide health benefits. Risk communicators and fish consumers have suggested the importance of including risk comparison information, as well as health risk-benefit comparisons in health advisory communications. To improve understanding about how anglers fishing in waters affected by health advisories may respond to such risk-risk or risk-benefit information, we surveyed Lake Ontario (NY, USA) anglers. We interviewed by telephone 4,750 anglers, 2,593 of which had fished Lake Ontario in the past 12 months and were sent a detailed mail questionnaire (1,245 responded). We posed questions varying the magnitude of health risks and health benefits to be gained by fish consumption, and varied the population affected by these risks and benefits (anglers, children, women of childbearing age, and unborn children). Respondents were influenced by health benefit and health risk information. When risks were high, most respondents would eat less fish regardless of the benefit level. When risks were low, the magnitude of change in fish consumption was related to level of benefit. Responses differed depending on the question wording order, that is, whether “risks” were posed before “benefits.” For a given risk-benefit level, respondents would give different advice to women of childbearing age versus children, with more conservative advice (eat less fish) provided to women of childbearing age. Respondents appeared to be influenced more strongly by risk-risk comparisons (e.g., risks from other foods vs. risks from fish) than by risk-benefit comparisons (e.g., risks from fish vs. benefits from fish). Risk analysts and risk communicators should improve efforts to include risk-risk and risk-benefit comparisons in communication efforts, and to clarify to whom the health risks and benefits from fish consumption may accrue.Keywords
This publication has 36 references indexed in Scilit:
- Understanding public attitudes to technologyJournal of Risk Research, 1998
- Effect of a Statewide Sport Fish Consumption Advisory on Open-Water Fishing in MaineNorth American Journal of Fisheries Management, 1997
- Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale Performance in Humans Influenced by Maternal Consumption of Environmentally Contaminated Lake Ontario FishJournal of Great Lakes Research, 1996
- Sportfish Consumption Patterns of Lake Ontario Anglers and the Relationship to Health AdvisoriesNorth American Journal of Fisheries Management, 1996
- The role of lifestyle factors in the etiology of stroke. A population-based case-control study in Perth, Western Australia.Stroke, 1994
- Laboratory Rat Experiments Show Consumption of Lake Ontario Salmon Causes Behavioral Changes: Support for Wildlife and Human Research ResultsJournal of Great Lakes Research, 1993
- A 4-year Followup Study of Children Born to Consumers of Lake Michigan FishJournal of Great Lakes Research, 1993
- Fishing in contaminated waters: Knowledge and risk perception of hazards by fishermen in New York CityJournal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, 1993
- The Inverse Relation between Fish Consumption and 20-Year Mortality from Coronary Heart DiseaseNew England Journal of Medicine, 1985
- Prenatal exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls: Effects on birth size and gestational ageThe Journal of Pediatrics, 1984