Factors in Exposure Assessment: Ethnic and Socioeconomic Differences in Fishing and Consumption of Fish Caught along the Savannah River

Abstract

South Carolina has issued fish consumption advisories for the Savannah River based on mercury and radionuclide levels. We examine differences in fishing rates and fish consumption of 258 people interviewed while fishing along the Savannah River, as a function of age, education, ethnicity, employment history, and income, and test the assumption that the average consumption of fish is less than the recreational value of 19 kg/year assumed by risk assessors. Ethnicity and education contributed significantly to explaining variations in number of fish meals per month, serving size, and total quantity of fish consumed per year. Blacks fished more often, ate more fish meals of slightly larger serving sizes, and consumed more fish per year than did Whites. Although education and income were correlated, education contributed most significantly to behavior; people who did not graduate from high school ate fish more often, ate more fish per year, and ate more whole fish than people who graduated from high school. Computing consumption of fish for each person individually indicates that (1) people who eat fish more often also eat larger portions, (2) a substantial number of people consume more than the amount of fish used to compute risk to recreational fishermen, (3) some people consume more than the subsistence level default assumption (50 kg/year) and (4) Blacks consume more fish per year than Whites, putting them at greater risk from contaminants in fish. Overall, ethnicity, age, and education contributed to variations in fishing behavior and consumption.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.

    J. F. Toth, Jr. and R. B. Brown, “Racial and gender meanings of why people participate in recreational fishing,” Leisure Sci-ences 19129–146(1997).

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    E. Horn, “Toxics in seafood,” Tidal Exch. 36–7(Hudson River Foundation, New York, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    P. Sparks and R. Shepherd, “Public perceptions of the poten-tial hazards associated with food production: An empirical study,” Risk Analysis 14799–808(1994).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), “States issue a record number of health advisories,” Hazard-ous Substances and Public Health 61–2(1996).

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Institute of Medicine, Seafood Safety(National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Update: National listing of fish and wildlife consumption advisories.” (Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    H. E. Ratcliffe, G. M. Swanson, and L. J. Fischer, “Human exposure to mercury: A critical assessment of the evidence of adverse health effects,” Journal of Toxicology and Environ-mental Health 49221–270(1996).

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    P. W. Davidson, G. J. Myers, and C. Cox. “Longitudinal neuro-developmental study of Seychelles children following in utero exposure to methylmercury from maternal fish ingestion: Out-comes at 19 and 29 months.” Neurotoxicology 16677–688 (1995).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    P. Weihe, P. Grandjean, F. Debes, and R. White, “Health implications for Faroe Islanders of heavy metals and PCBs from pilot whales,” Science of the Total Environment 186141–148(1996).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    M. L. Wahlqvist, C. S. Lo, and K. A. Myers, “Fish intake and arterial wall characteristics in healthy people and diabetic patients,” Lancet 2944–946(1989).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    D. J. Hunter, I. Kazda, A. Chockalingam, and J. G. Fodor, “Fish consumption and cardiovascular mortality in Canada: An inter-regional comparison,” American Journal Preventive Medicine 45–11(1988).

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    E. S. Ebert, “Fish consumption and human health: Developing partnerships between risk assessors and resource managers,” American Fisheries Society Symposium 16261- 170.

  13. 13.

    A. H. Stern, “Re-evaluation of the reference dose for methyl-mercury and assessment of current exposure levels. Risk Anal. 13355–364(1993).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    J. Burger, K. Cooper, and M. Gochfeld, “Exposure assessment for heavy metal ingestion from a sport fish in Puerto Rico: Estimating risk for local fishermen,” Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 36355–365(1992).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    J. Burger, K. Staine, and M. Gochfeld, “Fishing in contami-nated waters: Knowledge and risk perception of hazards in fishermen in New York City,” Journal of Toxicology and Envi-ronmental Health 3995–105(1993).

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    C. M. Velicer and B. A. Knuth, “Communicating contaminant risks from sport-caught fish: The importance of target audience assessment,” Risk Analysis 14833–841(1994).

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    P. D. Anderson and J. B. Wiener, “Eating fish,” in Risk versus Risk: Tradeoffs in Protecting Health and the EnvironmentJ. D. Graham and J. B. Wiener (eds.), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    E. F. Fitzgerald, S. Hwang, K. A. Brix, B. Bush, K. Cook, and P. Worswick, “Fish PCB concentrations and consumption patterns among Mohawk women at Akwesasne,” Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 51–19(1995).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    L. E. Fleming, S. Watkins, R. Kaderman, B. Levin, D. R. Ayyar, M. Bizzio, D. Stephens, and J. A. Bean, “Mercury exposure in humans through food consumption from the Ever-glades of Florida,” Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 8041–48 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC), “Public health evaluation: Cesium-137 and strontium-90 in fish.” Attachment to the fish consumption advisory for the Savannah River (#3-5/14/96, 1996).

  21. 21.

    P. J. West, “Biodiversity: Prospect and promise for the Savan-nah River Site.” (Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, Aiken, S.C., 1998).

  22. 22.

    J. Burger, “Fishing and risk along the Savannah River: Possible intervention.” Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 54(1998).

  23. 23.

    SAS Institute, “Statistical Analysis System: Statistics.” Cary, NC (1988).

  24. 24.

    U.S. Census Bureau, “USA Counties 1996: Profile U.S.,” Bu-reau of Census, Washington D.C. (1996). http://www.census. gov/statab/USA96/16/069.txt

  25. 25.

    Alampi, G, “Education,” Gale State Rankings ReporterDetroit, Michigan (1996).

  26. 26.

    P. S. Price, S. H. Su, and M. N. Gray, “The effect of sampling bias on estimates of angler consumption rates in creel surveys,” Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 4355–372(1994).

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    R. E. Reinert, B. A. Knuth, M. A. Kamrin, and Q. J. Stober, “Risk assessment, risk management, and fish consumption advisories in the United States,” Fisheries 165–12(1991).

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    P. Cunningham, S. Smith, J. Tippett, and A. Greene, “A national fish consumption advisory data base: A step toward consistency,” Fisheries 1914–23(1994).

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Mercury Study: Report to Congress: Vol 1. Executive Summary.” EPA-452-R-97-003, Washington D.C. (December 1997). http://www.epa.gov/ ngispgm3/iris/subst/0073.htm

  30. 30.

    Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry: “Toxicological Profile for Mercury—Draft for Public Comment,” Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA (1997).

  31. 31.

    W. Willett, Nutritional epidemiologyOxford University Press, New York.

  32. 32.

    D. E. Taylor, “Blacks and the environment: Toward an expla-nation of the concern and action gap between blacks and whites,” Environment and Behavior 21175–205(1989).

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    J. Flynn, P. Slovic, and C. K. Mertz, “Gender, Race, and Perception of Environmental Health Risks,” Risk Analysis 141101–1108(1994).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    W. Arp, III and C. Kenny, “Black Environmentalism in the Local Community Context,” Environment and Behavior 28267–282(1996).

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    R. D. Bullard and B. H. Wright, “The politics of pollution: Implications for the Black community,” Phylon 4771–78 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    R. J. Burby and D. E. Strong, “Coping with chemicals: Blacks, Whites, planners, and industrial pollution,”Journal of the American Planning Association 63469–480(1997).

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    J. Burger, “Environmental attitudes and perceptions of future land use at the Savannah River Site: Are there racial differ-ences?” Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 53255–262(1997).

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    G. M. Egeland, L. A. Feyk, and J. P. Middaugh, “The use of traditional foods in a healthy diet in Alaska: Risks in perspec-tive.” Alaska Division of Public Health, Bulletin, January 15, 1998.

  39. 39.

    G. M. Egeland and J. P. Middaugh, “Balancing fish consump-tion benefits with mercury exposure,” Science 2781904–1905.

  40. 40.

    H. L. Jacobs, H. D. Kahn, K. A. Stralka, and D. B. Phan, “Estimates of per capita fish consumption in the U. S. based on the continuing survey of food intake by individuals (CSII),” Risk Anal. 18283–292.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Burger, J., Stephens, W.L., Boring, C.S. et al. Factors in Exposure Assessment: Ethnic and Socioeconomic Differences in Fishing and Consumption of Fish Caught along the Savannah River. Risk Anal 19, 427–438 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007048628467

Download citation

  • Ethnicity
  • fish consumption
  • advisories
  • Savannah River
  • methylmercury
  • risk perception