Abstract
Three decades of concern over consumption of potentially contaminated Great Lakes fish has led government agencies and public health proponents to implement risk assessment and management programs as a means of protecting the health of fishers and their families. While well-meaning in their intent, these programs––and much of the research conducted to support and evaluate them––were not designed to accommodate the understandings and concerns of the fish consumer. Results from a qualitative component of a multi-disciplinary, multi-year research project on frequent (average 108 meals per year) consumers of Great Lakes fish tell the fishers’ side of the story. We present data from 87 tape recorded interviews conducted with Vietnamese, Chinese, and English-speaking participants that underscore the quality of freshly caught Great Lakes fish and the important social and cultural benefits of fish and fishing to the consumer. We also outline the participants’ understandings of risk from eating Great Lakes fish and the way in which fishers and their families manage this risk. The paper concludes with a discussion of these benefits, risks, and risk management strategies as ways that Great Lakes fish consumers “construct” rather than “perceive” risk. We advocate for risk assessment and management protocols that involve those who will be affected the most, such as frequent consumers of Great Lakes fish, from the initial “risk characterization” stage through to any necessary risk communication.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In 1985, the International Joint Commission’s Great Lakes Water Quality Board identified 42 “Areas of Concern” around the Great Lakes. These locations, commonly referred to as “AOCs,” were accorded this acronym based on the extensive point source pollution and destruction of fish and wildlife habitat occurring within their boundaries.
At the time of the study, this would be approximately $58.80 US.
References
Beck, U. 1992. Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.
Beehler, G.P., B. M. McGuinness, and J.E. Vena. 2001. Polluted fish, sources of knowledge, and the perception of risk: Contextualizing African American anglers’ sport fishing practices. Human Organization 60 (3): 288–297.
Bernard, H.R. 1994. Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Bradbury, J.A., K.M. Branch, and W. Focht. 1999. Trust and public participation in risk policy issues. In Social trust and the management of risk, ed. G. Cvetkovich and R.E. Löfstedt, 117–127. London, UK: Earthscan Publications.
Burger, J., J. Sanchez, and M. Gochfeld. 1998. Fishing, consumption and risk perception in fisherfolk along an East Coast estuary. Environmental Research 77: 25–35.
Burger, J., and L. Waishwell. 2001. Are we reaching the target audience? Evaluation of a fish fact sheet. The Science of the Total Environment 277: 77–86.
Burger, J. 2002. Consumption patterns and why people fish. Environmental Research Section A 90:125–135.
Cavan, K. R., B.L. Gibson, and M. Bui. 1994. Report for the Hamilton-Wentworth Department of Public Health Services on the Pilot Study of Dietary Habits of Immigrants of Vietnamese Origin. Parts I and II. Hamilton, Ontario, Canada: Health Canada.
Connelly, N.A., and B.A. Knuth. 1998. Evaluating risk communication: Examining target audience perceptions about four presentation formats for fish consumption advisory information. Risk Analysis 18 (3): 649–659.
Corburn, J. 2002. Combining community-based research and local knowledge to confront asthma and subsistence-fishing hazards in Greenpoint/Williamsburg, Brooklyn, New York. Environmental Health Perspectives 110(suppl. 2): 241–248.
Dawson, J., and D. Kraft. 1998. Communicating information about Great Lakes fish consumption: defining the problems and identifying the players. Community Animation Program, Health Canada Contract No. DB980318161459. Ottawa, Ontario: Health Canada.
Dawson, J., and the Fish, Wildlife Nutrition Project. 2000. Fish stories: A profile of fishing and fish consumption in the St. Clair River area. Great Lakes Health Effects Program Project Number K341813. Ottawa: Health Canada.
Denzin, N.K., and Y.S. Lincoln. 1994. Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative research. In Handbook of Qualitative Research, ed. N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln, 1–17. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Douglas, M. 1992. Risk and blame: Essays in cultural theory. New York: Routledge.
Dyck, I. 1993. Ethnography: A feminist method? Canadian Geographer 37 (1): 52–57.
Eyles, J. 1993. Feminism and interpretive method: How different? Canadian Geographer 37: 50–52.
Fish and Wildlife Nutrition Project. 2000. Communicating fish advisory information: a monograph. Report to Health Canada Great Lakes 2000 Program. Contract # H4078–5-C385/001/SS. March.
Fox, N.J. 1999. Postmodern reflections on ‘risk’, ‘hazards’ and life choices. In Risk and sociocultural theory: New directions and perspectives, ed. D. Lupton, 12–33. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hansen, J., L. Holm, L. Frewer, P. Robinson, and P. Sandøe. 2003. Beyond the knowledge deficit: Recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks. Appetite 41: 111–121.
Inhorn, M. 1995. Medical anthropology and epidemiology: Divergences or convergences? Social Science and Medicine 40 (3): 285–290.
Janesick, V.J. 1994. The dance of qualitative research design: Metaphor, methodology and meaning. In Handbook of qualitative research, ed. N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln, 209–219. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Joffe, H. 2003. Risk: From perception to social representation. British Journal of Social Psychology 42, 55–73.
Johnson, B.L., H.E. Hicks, and C.T. De Rosa. 1999. Key environmental human health issues in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River Basins. Environmental Research 80: S2–S12.
Johnson, M. 1992. Research on traditional environmental knowledge: its development and its role. In Lore: Capturing traditional environmental knowledge, ed. M.J. Johnson, 3–22. Hay River, North West Territories, Canada: Dene Cultural Institute.
Knox, B. 2000. Consumer perception and understanding of risk from food. British Medical Bulletin 56 (1): 97–109.
Knuth, B.A., N.A. Connelly, J. Sheeshka, and J. Patterson. 2003. Weighing health benefit and health risk information when consuming sport-caught fish. Risk Analysis 23 (6): 1185–1197.
Kraft, D. 1995. Report on scoping to health Canada. Great Lakes Health Effects Program. Ottawa: Health Canada.
Leiss, W., and C. Chociolko. 1994. Risk and responsibility. Montreal, Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Levine, K.J., V.D. Miller, M.A. Kamrin, and J.W. Dearing. 1999. Anglers’ attitudes, beliefs and behaviors as impacted by the Michigan Fish Consumption Advisory. Journal of Public Health Management Practice 5 (6): 18–28.
Lupton, D. 1993. Risk as moral danger: The social and political functions of risk discourse in public health. International Journal of Health Services 23: 425–435.
Lupton, D. 1999. Introduction: Risk and sociocultural theory. In Risk and sociocultural theory: New directions and perspectives, ed. D. Lupton, 1–11. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Murkin, E., D.C. Cole, J.P. Kearney, J. Sheeshka, J. Dawson, and the Fish and Wildlife Nutrition Project. 2003. Fish consumption among fishers in five Ontario AOCs. Journal of Great Lakes Research 29 (3): 436–447.
Nelkin, D. 1989. Communicating technological risk: The social construction of risk perception. Annual Reviews in Public Health 10: 95–113.
O’Neil, J.D., B. Elias, and A. Yassi. 1997. Poisoned food: Cultural resistance to the contaminants discourse in Nunavik. Arctic Anthropology 34 (1): 29–40.
Ponce, R.A., S.M. Bartell, E.Y. Wong, D. LaFlamme, C. Carrington, R.C. Lee, D.L. Patrick, E.M. Faustman, and M. Bolger. 2000. Use of quality-adjusted life year weights with dose-response models for public health decisions: A case study of the risks and benefits of fish consumption. Risk Analysis 20 (4): 529–542.
Sheeshka, J., and D. Cole, eds. 2000. Great Lakes fish eaters project: Dietary survey and assessment of potential risks and benefits. Final report. Ottawa: Health Canada.
Short, J.F. 1984. The social fabric of risk. American Sociological Review 49: 711–725.
Stern, A.H. 1993. Re-evaluation of the reference dose for methylmercury and assessment of current exposure levels. Risk Analysis 13 (3): 355–364.
Thornton, S.J. 1993. The quest for emergent meaning: A personal account. In Theory and concepts in qualitative research: Perspectives from the field, ed. D.J. Flinders and G.E. Mills, 68–82. New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press.
Tilden, J., L.P. Hanrahan, H. Anderson, C. Palit, J. Olson, W. MacKenzie, and the Great Lakes Sport Fish Consortium. 1997. Health advisories for consumers of Great Lakes sport fish: Is the message being received? Environmental Health Perspectives 105: 1360–1365.
Velicer, C.M., and B.A. Knuth. 1994. Communicating contaminant risks from sport-caught fish: The importance of target audience assessment. Risk Analysis 14 (5): 833–841.
Acknowledgements
Funded by the Great Lakes Health Effects Program, Bioregional Health Effects Division, Health Canada, Contract No. H4078–5-c388/001/SS. Tri-council Eco-Research Chair in Environmental Health at McMaster University. We are grateful for the contributions of the following research assistants: Hak Cheung and Charles Fok, Chinese community outreach coordinators, interpreters, translators; Cathy Dang and Mai Pham, Vietnamese community outreach coordinators, interpreters, translators; Mai Nguyen and Kim Nguyen, Vietnamese translators; Tracy Torchetti, anthropology graduate student; and Rachel Miles Derry, English language transcriber.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dawson, J., Sheeshka, J., Cole, D.C. et al. Fishers weigh in: benefits and risks of eating Great Lakes fish from the consumer’s perspective. Agric Hum Values 25, 349–364 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-008-9131-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-008-9131-3