Need for improved risk communication of fish consumption advisories to protect maternal and child health: influence of primary informants

Educator beliefs and organizational constraints: Factors that influence informal education about fish consumption advisories in a southeastern US state

All US states, and many countries around the world, have waterways with environmental health advisories intended to protect individuals from harmful chemicals in fish, yet little is known about how informal science educators, even those who engage anglers along waterways, incorporate advisory information into their educational activities. This study, grounded in environmental health literacy, investigated the practices, knowledge, and beliefs of 24 informal educators housed in varied agencies and organizations in a southeastern US state. Participants described a range of educational activities and identified organizational constraints on their education about fish consumption advisories, which varied by organization type. Their knowledge of relevant environmental health concepts was incomplete, and they described health and teaching beliefs consistent with limited focus on advisory education. Local government and nonprofit educators were well positioned to educate anglers about advisories, due to their freedom to design and deliver instruction and their regular contact with anglers. Educators in wildlife agencies had more contact with anglers and were identified as potential conduits given their interactions, but organizational constraints (such as educators' ability to choose content/pedagogy and conflicting missions of agencies) would need to be addressed.

Comparison of Recreational Fish Consumption Advisories Across the USA

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Our comparative analysis sought to understand the factors which drive differences in fish consumption advisories across the USA - including exposure scenarios (acute and chronic health risk, non-cancer and cancer health endpoints), toxicity values (reference dose, cancer slope factor, acute tolerance level), and meal size and bodyweight assumptions.

RECENT FINDINGS

Fish consumption provides essential nutrients but also results in exposure to contaminants such as PCBs and methylmercury. To protect consumers from the risks of fish contaminants, fish consumption advisories are established, most often by state jurisdictions, to estimate the amount of a certain fish species a person could consume throughout their lifetime without harm. However, inconsistencies in advisories across the USA confuse consumers and undermine the public health goals of fish advisory programs. To date, no rigorous comparison of state and national fish consumption advisories has been reported. Our work identifies discrepancies in key assumptions used to derive risk-based advisories between US states, reflecting differences in the interpretation of toxicity science. We also address the implications for these differences by reviewing advisories issued by contiguous states bordering two waterbodies: Lake Michigan and the Lower Mississippi River. Our findings highlight the importance of regional collaboration when issuing advisories, so that consumers of self-caught fish are equipped with clear knowledge to make decisions to protect their health.

Anglers' Views on Using Signs to Communicate Fish Consumption Advisories

The purpose of this case study was to examine signs as a means of communicating fish consumption advisory information to English- and Spanish-speaking anglers in North Carolina. This study involved a group of stakeholders, including representatives from local and state agencies, non-governmental organizations, and academia, as well as 38 anglers in focus group discussions to learn about their knowledge and beliefs in the context of fishing in polluted waterways, including what they knew about fish consumption advisories and their perceptions of prototype signs. Across groups, participants identified two confusing elements of signs: the allowable number of servings of fish under advisory and distinct consumption recommendations for different subgroups. They recommended streamlined messaging and the use of visuals, lay terms, and locally relevant languages as ways to improve prototype signs. Additionally, participants identified the state wildlife agency as a common source of information about fish safety, more so than signs. These results suggest opportunities for improved communication of advisories, especially to the most at-risk populations.