Self-caught Fish Research Articles

Sociodemographic Disparities in Mercury Exposure from United States Coal-Fired Power Plants.

Hazardous air pollutants emitted by United States (U.S) coal-fired power plants have been controlled by the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) since 2012. Sociodemographic disparities in traditional air pollutant exposures from U.S. power plants are known to occur but have not been evaluated for mercury (Hg), a neurotoxicant that bioaccumulates in food webs. Atmospheric Hg deposition from domestic power plants decreased by 91% across the contiguous U.S. from 6.4 Mg in 2010 to 0.55 Mg in 2020. Prior to MATS, populations living within 5 km of power plants (n = 507) included greater proportions of frequent fish consumers, individuals with low annual income and less than a high school education, and limited English-proficiency households compared to the US general population. These results reinforce a lack of distributional justice in plant siting found in prior work. Significantly greater proportions of low-income individuals lived within 5 km of active facilities in 2020 (n = 277) compared to plants that retired after 2010, suggesting that socioeconomic status may have played a role in retirement. Despite large deposition declines, an end-member scenario for remaining exposures from the largest active power plants for individuals consuming self-caught fish suggests they could still exceed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reference dose for methylmercury.

Results of a national survey of high-frequency fish consumers in the United States

Exposure to contaminants in fish may be associated with adverse health outcomes even as fish consumption is generally considered beneficial. Risk assessments conducted to support regulatory analyses rely on quantitative fish consumption estimates. Here we report the results of a national survey of high-frequency fish consumers (n = 2099) based on a survey population statistically representative of ~17.6 million U.S. individuals consuming three or more fish meals per week. The survey was conducted during 2013 using an on-line survey instrument. Total fish consumption averaged 111 g/day from market, restaurant and self-caught sources. Depending on the season, the incidence of individuals reporting consumption of self-caught species ranged between 10–12% of our high-frequency fish consuming demographic, averaging approximately 30 g/day and comprising 23% of total fish consumption from all sources of fish. Recreational or self-caught consumption rates vary regionally and are poorly understood, particularly for high-frequency consumers, making it difficult to support national-scale assessments. A divergence between sport-fishing and harvesting of fish as a food-staple is apparent in survey results given differences in consumption patterns with income and education. Highest consumption rates were reported for low income respondents more likely to harvest fish as a food staple. By contrast, the incidence of self-caught fish consumption was higher with income and education although overall consumption rates were lower. Regional differences were evident, with respondents from the East-South Central and New England regions reporting lowest consumption rates from self-caught fish on the order of 12–16 g/day and those from Mountain, Pacific and Mid-Atlantic regions reporting highest rates ranging from 44 to 59 g/day. Respondent-specific consumption rates together with national-level data on fish tissue concentrations of PCBs, MeHg, and PFOS suggest that 10–58% of respondents reporting self-caught fish consumption are exposed to concentrations of these contaminants that exceed threshold levels for health effects based on a target hazard index of one, representing 2.3 M to 19 M individuals. The results of this nationwide survey of high-frequency fish consumers highlights regional and demographic differences in self-caught and total fish consumption useful for policy analysis with implications for distributional differences in potential health impacts in the context of both contaminant exposures as well as protective effects.

A survey of dioxin-like contaminants in fish from recreational fishing

The dioxin and dioxin-like compounds are regarded as one of the most toxic group of environmental contaminants. Food for the commercial market is regularly monitored for their dioxin levels and the concentration allowed in food is strictly regulated. Less is known about locally caught fish from recreational fishing, which is often brought home for consumption. This can be fish caught from nearby lakes or streams or fish with marine origin close to industrial areas or harbours that are not regularly monitored for their dioxin levels. In this study, we established collaboration with schools in 13 countries. We received 203 samples of 29 different fish species of which Atlantic cod was the most abundant followed by brown trout and pollock. In general, the majority of samples from the participating countries had low concentrations (between 0.1 and 0.2pg/g chemical-activated luciferase gene expression toxic equivalency wet weight (CALUX TEQ w.w.)) of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs. Only 18 samples had concentrations above 1pg/g CALUX TEQ w.w., and only 2 dab samples had concentration above maximum levels set by the European Commission. The Atlantic cod samples showed a significant reduction in the concentrations of dioxins with increasing latitude indicating less contamination of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds in the north of Norway. The results indicate that a moderate consumption of self-caught fish at presumed non-contaminated sites does not represent a major risk for exposure to dioxins or dioxin-like compounds at concentrations associated with adverse health effects. Recreational fishermen should, however, obtain knowledge about local fish consumption advice.

Role of self-caught fish in total fish consumption rates for recreational fishermen: average consumption for some species exceeds allowable intake

Studies of fish consumption focus on recreational or subsistence fishing, on awareness and adherence to advisories, consumption patterns, and contaminants in fish. Yet the general public obtains their fish from commercial sources. In this paper I examine fish consumption patterns of recreational fishermen in New Jersey to determine: (1) consumption rates for self-caught fish and for other fish, (2) meals consumed per year, (3) average meal size, and average daily intake of mercury, and (4) variations in these parameters for commonly-consumed fish, and different methods of computing intake. Over 300 people were interviewed at fishing sites and fishing clubs along the New Jersey shore. Consumption patterns of anglers varied by species of fish. From 2 to 90% of the anglers ate the different fish species, and between 9 and 75% gave fish away to family or friends. Self-caught fish made up 7–92% of fish diets depending upon species. On average, self-caught fish were eaten for only 2–6 months of the year, whereas other fish (commercial or restaurant) were eaten up to 10 months a year. Anglers consumed from 5 to 36 meals of different fish a year, which resulted in intake of mercury ranging from 0.01 to 0.22 μg/kg/day. Average intake of Mako shark, swordfish, and tuna (sushi, canned tuna, self-caught tuna) exceeded the US Environmental Protection Agency’s oral, chronic reference dose for mercury of 0.1 μg/kg/day. However, computing intake using consumption for the highest month results in average mercury intake exceeding the reference dose for striped bass and bluefish as well. These data, and the variability in consumption patterns, have implications for risk assessors, risk managers, and health professionals.

State-Level Recreational Fishing Regulations and Fish Consumption Advisories in the United States

Recreational fishing is regulated in 2 broad ways: natural resource-based management of fish stocks referred to here as "catch regulations," and public heath-based fish consumption advisories to reduce risks to humans from exposures to pollutants referred to as "consumption advisories." To examine the extent to which state regulatory agencies present recreational fish catch regulations and consumption advisories together and develop an ecologically based, public health argument for why these fishing regulations and advisories could be joined. State-level catch regulations and consumption advisories were collected from 50 US states and analyzed for a variety of factors. Correlation between catch regulations and consumption advisories, by aquatic animal species and taxonomic family, and by state, were the main outcome measures. State-level catch regulations were strongly predictive of state-level consumption advisories, by species (R = 0.87) or taxonomic family (R = 0.91). Within each state, however, fish catch regulations and consumption advisories were presented together in less than half of fishing guides. Fish advisories and regulations are often produced by separate state regulatory agencies, indicating an opportunity for interagency collaboration to improve health communication messaging regarding recreational fishing and self-caught fish consumption.

Stakeholder Participation in Research Design and Decisions: Scientists, Fishers, and Mercury in Saltwater Fish

Individuals who fish and eat self-caught fish make decisions about where to fish, the type to eat, and the quantity to eat. Federal and state agencies often issue consumption advisories for some fish with high mercury (Hg) concentrations, but seldom provide either the actual metal levels to the general public, or identify the fish that have low contaminant levels. Community participatory research is of growing importance in defining, studying, and resolving complex exposure and risk issues, and this paper is at the intersection of traditional stakeholder approaches and community-based participatory research. The objective of this paper is to describe the process whereby stakeholders (fishers), were involved in directing and refining research questions to address their particular informational needs about mercury levels in fish, potential risks, and methods to maintain health, by balancing the risks and benefits of fish consumption. A range of stakeholders, mainly individual fishers, fishing organizations, and other scientists, were involved at nearly every stage. Community participants influenced many aspects of the design and implementation of the research, in the determination of which fish species to sample, in the collection of the samples, and in the final analyses and synthesis, as well as the communication of results and implications of the research through their fishing club publications, talks and gatherings. By involving the most interested and affected communities, the data and conclusions are relevant to their needs because the fish examined were those they ate and wanted information about, and directly address concerns about the risk from consuming self-caught fish. Although mercury levels in fish presumed to be high in mercury are known, little information was available to the fishermen on mercury levels in fish that were low and thus provided little risk to their families. While community participatory research is more time-consuming and expensive than traditional scientific research, both the process and results are better scientifically in terms of community relevance.

Locational Differences in Mercury and Selenium Levels in 19 Species of Saltwater Fish from New Jersey

Individuals who fish, and their families that ingest self-caught fish, make decisions about where to fish, what type of fish to eat, and the quantity of fish to eat. While federal and state agencies often issue consumption advisories for some fish with high mercury (Hg) concentrations, advisories seldom provide the actual metal levels to the general public. There are few data for most saltwater fish, and even less information on variations in Hg levels in fish within a state or geographical region. The objective of this study was to provide Hg concentrations from 19 species of fish caught in different locations in New Jersey to (1) test the hypothesis that mean metal levels vary geographically, (2) provide this information to individuals who fish these coastal waters, and (3) provide a range of values for risk assessors who deal with saltwater fish exposure in the Northeastern United States. Selenium (Se) was also examined because of its purported moderating effect on the toxicity of Hg. Hg levels showed significant geographical variation for 10 of 14 species that were caught in more than one region of New Jersey, but there were significant locational differences for Se in only 5 of the fish. Mercury levels were significantly lower in fish collected from northern New Jersey (except for ling, Molva molva), compared to other regions. As might be expected, locational differences in Hg levels were greatest for fish species with the highest Hg concentrations (shark, Isurus oxyrinchus; tuna, Thunnus thynnus and T. albacares; striped bass, Morone saxatilis; bluefish, Pomatomus saltatrix). Fishers and their families might reduce their risk from Hg exposure not only by selecting fish generally lower in Hg, but by fishing predominantly in some regions over others, further lowering the potential risk. Health professionals might use these data to advise patients on which fish are safest to consume (in terms of Hg exposure) from particular geographical regions.

Fishing, fish consumption, and awareness about warnings in a university community in central New Jersey in 2007, and comparisons with 2004

Fish are a healthy source of protein, but the risks from consuming fish have become a national concern. Over the past 7 years, there have been a number of national advisories regarding saltwater fish. Fish consumption patterns and public knowledge about advisories and warnings have been examined for at-risk populations, but there is little information about the latter for a general population, or of temporal trends in such information acquisition. Information about the benefits and health risks of consuming fish, health warnings from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the Food and Drug Administration, belief in these warnings, and trust in different sources of information were examined in a sample of 460 people within a university community in central New Jersey in 2007. The null hypothesis of no differences in fishing, consumption, and knowledge about advisories as a function of age, gender, ethnicity, and education was tested. In 2007, only 30% of the study population fished, and 83% of the study population ate fish, either commercial or self-caught. There were differences in fishing behavior, consumption patterns, and awareness of advisories as a function of gender, ethnicity, age, and education. Most notably, nearly twice as many men as women fished, Whites fished more and Blacks and Indian/Pakistanis fished less than other ethnic groups, and people aged 23–35 fished more than did others. About 8% of fish meals were from self-caught fish, 32% were eaten in restaurants, and 60% were of fish bought in stores and cooked at home. Men ate more meals of self-caught fish than did females, and Asians ate more meals of fish in restaurants, and Blacks ate more meals of store-bought fish than other ethnic groups. The total number of fish meals consumed per month increased significantly with age. Overall, more people had heard about the benefits (92%) than the risks (78%) of fish consumption. When asked whom they trust for information about health benefits and risks from eating fish, doctors were rated the highest, followed by professors; friends and fishermen were rated the lowest. We then examined whether there were any changes from 2004 to 2007 in the knowledge of the health benefits and warnings about fish consumption, and the trustworthiness of different sources of information. In other words, have communication efforts of the state and federal agencies resulted in any appreciable increase in overall awareness of the benefits or risks of fish consumption. The greatest change in the parameters examined from 2004 to 2007 was an overall decrease in fish consumption from an average of 7.9 meals per month in 2004 to about six meals per month in 2007. This suggests that the unintended effect of some of the warnings and advisories is to decrease overall fish consumption, rather than to switch from fish species with high levels of contaminants to those with low levels.

Estimates of fish consumption rates for consumers of bought and self-caught fish in Connecticut, Florida, Minnesota, and North Dakota

Fish consumption rates derived from national surveys may not accurately reflect consumption rates in a particular population such as recreational anglers. Many state and local health agencies in the U.S. have conducted area-specific surveys to study fish consumption patterns in local populations, assess exposure to environmental contaminants, or evaluate compliance with fish advisories. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has analyzed the raw data from fish consumption surveys in Florida, Connecticut, Minnesota, and North Dakota for the purpose of deriving distributions of fish consumption rates and studying the variables that may be more predictive of high-end consumers. Distributions of fish consumption for different age cohorts, ethnic groups, socioeconomic statuses, types of fish (i.e., freshwater, marine, estuarine), and source of fish (i.e., store-bought versus self-caught) were derived. Consumption of fish and shellfish for those who consume both caught and bought fish is higher than those who reported eating only bought or only self-caught. Mean fish consumption per kilogram of body weight ranged from 0.11 g/kg-day to 2.3 g/kg-day. The highest values were observed in Florida for children 1 < 6 years of age. The Florida data show a statistically significant increase in the percentage of the population reporting fish and shellfish consumption with an increase in household income and education. This trend was not observed in the other states.

Saltwater sport fishing for food or income in the Northeastern US: Statistical estimates and policy implications

Abstract In the Northeast US fishery managers have attempted to control marine recreational fishing mortality through annual adjustments to the number and/or size of fish that can be kept. These measures, with a few exceptions, have generally failed to prevent recreational fishing mortality rates from exceeding annual target levels. In this study, we show that one of the reasons why keep limits may have failed is that a substantial number of anglers obtain little value from being able to keep self-caught fish. Our findings are based on a telephone survey administered to marine anglers in all of the coastal counties in the Northeast US in 2004/2005. To evaluate the importance of keeping self-caught fish, we provide estimates of the size of the marine angling population in the Northeast US that keeps fish for food or income and also for those that fish primarily for recreation and place little or no value on keeping fish. Demographic characteristics of the two groups of anglers are compared statistically and differences related to consumption of self-caught marine resources and to health warning advisories are discussed. We also estimate the size of the Northeast US angling population that relies on their self-caught marine resources as a cost-saving food source or as a supplement to household income. This information could improve the effectiveness of fisheries regulations and the ability of policy analysts to predict how anglers might be affected by proposed fishery management actions.

Mercury in fish available in supermarkets in Illinois: Are there regional differences

Media coverage has made the public aware of both the benefits and the risks from eating self-caught fish, but information on contaminants in commercial fish is much more limited, especially on a local level. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration website provides methylmercury data for a variety of fish, but for many species sample sizes are small and data are more than a decade old, whereas commercial fish sources are highly dynamic. A few state agencies are beginning to provide contaminant information for commercial fish, including canned tuna. We examined the mercury concentration of six types of fish purchased in supermarkets in Chicago, Illinois in 2005. We measured total mercury (methylmercury accounts for about 90% of the total mercury in fish). One key question was whether the concentrations of mercury in fish available locally were similar to those reported in other areas of the country and in the FDA U.S. national data base. Such information is critical for the public, especially pregnant women or those planning on pregnancy, making decisions about types and quantities of fish to consume. Some fish are available generally throughout the U.S., but others are more locally available, suggesting a need for site-specific information. This research was stakeholder driven, and reflected local interest in the safety of local fish. There were significant differences in mercury concentrations among the fish, ranging from a mean of 0.03 microg/g (ppm-wet weight) for salmon (Salmo spp.) to 1.41 ppm for swordfish (Xiphias gladius). Maximum values for three species of fish (orange roughy Hoplostethus atianticus, swordfish walleye Sander vitreus) were over 1 ppm (FDA action level), and all of the fish except salmon had some values above 0.5 ppm, the action level set by some states and countries. There were significant differences in mercury concentrations among three types of canned tuna (Thunnus spp): "gourmet tuna" had the least amount of mercury, and white tuna had the most. The mean concentrations reported in this study were generally similar to those reported by the FDA, but there were important differences: 1) although the mean mercury concentrations for orange roughy for the Chicago data was similar to the FDA data, the maximum concentration was higher; 2) the mean for the Chicago swordfish was higher than the FDA data (1.26 vs 0.97 ppm, methylmercury); 3) the maximum for tuna steaks was higher in the FDA data set; and, 4) mean values for grouper (Epinephelus spp.) were higher in the FDA data set than the Chicago data. Further, the FDA has virtually no data on walleye and none on "gourmet tuna". These conclusions suggest that there are enough variations between the local data (Chicago) and the FDA data to warrant periodic local monitoring of commercial fish to provide up-to-date information to consumers about mercury in the fish they eat.

A framework and information needs for the management of the risks from consumption of self-caught fish

Governmental agencies deal with the potential risk from consuming fish contaminated with toxic chemicals by issuing fish consumption advisories. Yet such advisories are often ignored by the general public, who continue to fish and consume self-caught fish that are the subject of advisories and are from contaminated waters. Further, people are often unaware of specific warnings (which species to avoid, who is vulnerable, when they are vulnerable). In this paper we propose a more inclusive framework for examining consumption behavior of self-caught fish and identify information needs for effective communication. We include not only the usual variables that are used for calculating risk from fish consumption (meal frequency, meal size, contaminant levels) but also other aspects of behavior that contribute to risk. These include attitudes (trust, risk aversion, environmental concerns), behavior (sources of information, cultural mores, personal preferences), exposure (physical proximity, ingestion rates, bioavailability, target tissues), contaminant levels, individual host differences, and hazards (levels of contaminants). We suggest that attitudes and behavior shape risk as much as exposure and hazards and that all four of these factors must be considered in risk management. Factors such as gender, age, pregnancy status, and nutrition all influence who is at risk, while other consumption factors affect these at-risk populations, including meals/week, meal size, cooking method, fish species and sizes eaten, and years of fish consumption. Similarly, contaminant levels in fish vary by fish species, fish size and age, part of the fish, and collection location. Elucidating the risk to individual consumers involves integrating this range of factors, and managing the risk likewise involves incorporating these factors. We suggest that development of appropriate advisories and compliance with advisories will occur only if managers, risk assessors, and public policy makers consider this whole range of factors and not just the traditional fish consumption rate (often underestimated) and contaminant levels in fish (often undersampled). Merely informing the public of contaminant levels or the risk from contaminants will not ensure a public that has enough information to make informed decision, or to be in compliance with consumption advisories, or to effect changes in consumption behavior where public health is at risk.

The Peconic River: Concerns associated with different risk evaluations for fish consumption

Risk evaluation and assessment have been used as tools to regulate and manage the risks to consumers of eating self-caught fish that have high levels of contaminants. Armed with these risk assessments, health agencies issue consumption advisories, and in some cases, close some waters to fishing. Recently, regulatory agencies have used contaminant levels in fish as a benchmark for remedial action on contaminated sites, using human health risk assessment as the justification. The US Environmental Protection Agency's new surface water criterion for mercury is based on mercury levels in fish tissue. When multiple regulatory agencies have jurisdiction over the same waters or remediation site there is the potential for differing risk evaluations. Using the Peconic River on Long Island, New York as a case study, the paper examines how and why county, state, and federal health risk evaluations for fish contaminated with mercury differed. While the same risk methodology was applied by all agencies, the assessments were conducted for different purposes, applied different consumption and fish biomass assumptions, and arrived at different conclusions. The risk evaluations invoked to design fish consumption advisories use mercury levels currently in fish, and are designed to prevent current exposure. However, the risk assessments that provide a basis for remediation consider many different pathways of exposure (not just ingestion), and deal with long-term exposure. The risk evaluations, and recommendations promulgated by those agencies, differ because they have different goals, use different assumptions, and often fail to communicate among agencies. It is suggested that it is valuable to have these different levels of risk evaluations to adequately address health issues. However, there are policy implications, which include making the distinctions between the types of risk assessments, their methods and assumptions, and the rationale for these assumptions. Further, assessors and managers should involve all interested stakeholders (including regulators and state health officials) in discussions about the use of risk, the assumptions of risk assessment, and the goals of those evaluations. The difficulties in the case of the Peconic were not due to differences in the original data, but rather in the goals and type of risk assessments performed. If all deliberations had been transparent during all phases of the decision-making and management process, the conflicts within the minds of the public, regulators and other agencies might have been avoided. This case study suggests that more reliability, circumspection and transparency should be built into the process where multiple agencies and multiple objectives are involved.

Heavy metals in commercial fish in New Jersey

Levels of contaminants in fish are of particular interest because of the potential risk to humans who consume them. While attention has focused on self-caught fish, most of the fish eaten by the American public comes from commercial sources. We sampled 11 types of fish and shellfish obtained from supermarkets and specialty fish markets in New Jersey and analyzed them for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, mercury, and selenium. We test the null hypothesis that metal levels do not vary among fish types, and we consider whether the levels of any metals could harm the fish themselves or their predators or pose a health risk for human consumers. There were significant interspecific differences for all metals, and no fish types had the highest levels of more than two metals. There were few significant correlations (Kendall tau) among metals for the three most numerous fish (yellowfin tuna, bluefish, and flounder), the correlations were generally low (below 0.40), and many correlations were negative. Only manganese and lead positively were correlated for tuna, bluefish, and flounder. The levels of most metals were below those known to cause adverse effects in the fish themselves. However, the levels of arsenic, lead, mercury, and selenium in some fish were in the range known to cause some sublethal effects in sensitive predatory birds and mammals and in some fish exceeded health-based standards. The greatest risk from different metals resided in different fish; the species of fish with the highest levels of a given metal sometimes exceeded the human health guidance or standards for that metal. Thus, the risk information given to the public (mainly about mercury) does not present a complete picture. The potential of harm from other metals suggests that people not only should eat smaller quantities of fish known to accumulate mercury but also should eat a diversity of fish to avoid consuming unhealthy quantities of other heavy metals. However, consumers should bear in mind that standards have a margin of safety.

Fish availability in supermarkets and fish markets in New Jersey

There is considerable interest in fish consumption, contaminant loads in edible fish, and the risk from consuming fish. Both the benefits and the risks from eating fish are publicized. Most of this attention has focused on recreational anglers and self-caught fish, although the vast majority of fish that people eat are purchased from commercial sources: fish markets and supermarkets. We examined the availability of fish in supermarkets and specialty fish markets in New Jersey, including three regions of the state in communities with high and low per capita incomes (upscale vs. downscale neighborhoods). We were particularly interested in examining whether consumers could determine what type of fish they were buying and whether it was farm-raised or wild. Flounder and salmon were the most commonly available fish, followed by bluefish and tilapia. There were few significant differences in the availability of fish as a function of region. Fish were equally available in fish markets and supermarkets, although snappers were more available in fish markets. The most common fish (found in over 60% of stores) were equally available in upscale and downscale neighborhood stores. However, there were some significant differences in less common fish; butterfish, croaker, monkfish, porgy, and whiting were more available in downscale markets, and halibut, sole, and swordfish were more available in upscale markets. Information available to consumers on labels varied markedly: (1) most labels were generic but some indicated species (e.g., Spanish vs. Boston mackerel, Chilean vs. Black sea bass, mako vs. black-tip shark, rainbow vs. steelhead trout); (2) in many cases, labels indicated whether catfish or salmon were farmed or wild, but usually that information was lacking; (3) sometimes, the labels indicated the location where fish were caught (salmon); and (4) sometimes, there was information on both species and type (e.g., farm/wild for salmon). In most cases, labels gave only a fish name and price. Consumers would be able to make more informed choices if the provenance of fish was clearly stated. State agencies might improve information available to consumers by providing distributors and markets with guidelines about the types of information necessary for consumers to make informed decisions about the fish they eat. When asked, counter staff often could not answer where fish originated from. Finally, there should be partnerships between government agencies responsible for public health, risk assessors, and consumers to ascertain the types of information consumers want and to provide the best available information to consumers.

Daily consumption of wild fish and game: Exposures of high end recreationists

There has been widespread interest in the exposure of indigenous and subsistence populations to a variety of contaminants through the consumption of wild fish and game, yet there is little information on recreationists. Information on wild fish and game consumption in South Carolina are presented here, data on other sources of animal protein are presented elsewhere. Data are presented for use in probabilistic risk assessment. Fish and deer were the most commonly eaten wild-caught foods. High-end consumers were eating at nearly 10 2 the median consumption rate for most wild-caught foods. There were significant differences in consumption as a function of age and ethnicity that should be taken into account when conducting risk assessments for the consumption of wild-caught meat and fish. Men consumed more of these foods, while white sportsmen consumed more deer and black sportsmen consumed more fish. Similar data are not generally available, either for the U.S. as a whole, or for specific geographical locations, although there are data for self-caught fish because of the issuance of consumption advisories for U.S. waters.

Consumption Patterns and Why People Fish

Recreational and subsistence fishing play major roles in the lives of many people, although their importance in urban areas is often underestimated. There are fish and shellfish consumption advisories in the New York–New Jersey harbor estuary, particularly in the waters of the Newark Bay Complex. This paper examines fishing behavior, consumption patterns, and the reasons that people fish in the Newark Bay Complex. I test the null hypotheses that there are no differences among Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, and Whites in consumption patterns for fish and crabs and in the reasons that they fish or crab. Most people either fished or crabbed, but not both. People who fish and crab ate more grams of crab than fish in a given meal; people who crab only consumed more grams of crab at a meal than those who fish only consumed of fish. Although 30% or more of the people who fished and crabbed in the Newark Bay Complex did not eat their self-caught fish or crabs 8–25% of the people ate more than 1500 g/month. Some people angling in the Newark Bay Complex are eating crabs at a rate well over 1500 g/month, and about 70% are eating crabs even though there is a total ban on both harvest and consumption because of the health risks from dioxin. Consumption patterns were negatively correlated with mean income and positively correlated with mean age. Most people rated relaxation and being outdoors the highest reasons for angling, although on an open-ended question they usually listed recreation. There were no ethnic differences in reasons for angling, although other studies have shown ethnic differences in consumption. Obtaining fish or crabs to eat, give away, trade, or sell were rated low, suggesting that consumption advisories fail partly because people are not primarily fishing for food.

Exposure of South Carolinians to commercial meats and fish within their meat and fish diet.

There has been considerable interest in the public's exposure to a variety of contaminants through the consumption of wild fish and game, yet there is little information on consumption of commercial meats and fish, or the relationship between commercial and self-caught fish. We conducted a dietary survey in 1999 to estimate exposure levels of 464 individuals from people attending the Palmetto Sportsmen's Classic. Mean consumption was similar for beef, chicken/turkey, and wild-caught fish, and much lower for pork and store-bought fish, and still lower for restaurant fish. There were no ethnic differences in the consumption of most commercial fish and meats, although the differences for chicken approached significance. There were significant ethnic differences in consumption of wild-caught fish. Women ate significantly less of all meat types, except store-bought fish. People over 45 ate less beef than younger people, and people younger than 32 ate significantly more chicken than others. There were no significant differences in consumption patterns as a function of income, except for chicken and wild-caught fish; people with higher incomes ate more chicken than others, and people with lower incomes ate more wild-caught fish than others. When all wild-caught and commercial fish and meats are considered, there are significant differences only for ethnicity and gender. Blacks consume significantly more fish than Whites, and men consume significantly more than women.

Gender Differences in Meal Patterns: Role of Self-Caught Fish and Wild Game in Meat and Fish Diets

The hypothesis that there are gender differences in consumption patterns of self-caught fish and wild game in the meat and fish diet was examined for 415 people attending the Palmetto Sportsmen's Classic in Columbia, South Carolina. Women were less likely to eat most types of wild fish and game than were men, although there were no gender differences in the percentage eating beef, chicken, pork, and restaurant and store-bought fish. Similarly, women consumed significantly fewer meals of wild-caught fish and game than did men, although the number of meals of most store-bought foods did not differ. Both men and women who ate more meals of fish ate a higher percentage of wild-caught fish than either store-bought or restaurant fish. People with low number of fish and meat meals ate mainly fish; people eating over 30 meals of meat and fish a month ate mainly meat. Only about 9% of those interviewed said that they changed their fish consumption patterns when they, or their spouse, were pregnant. These gender-specific data on protein consumption can be used for exposure assessment and risk management decisions regarding consumption advisories for wild-caught fish and game.

RECREATION, CONSUMPTION OF WILD GAME, RISK, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SITES: PERCEPTIONS OF PEOPLE ATTENDING THE LEWISTON, ID, "ROUNDUP"

Several federal agencies are reclaiming land through remediation and restoration, and are considering potential future land uses that are compatible with current land uses and local needs. Understanding potential recreational and wild game consumption patterns and risk perceptions are critical for determining cleanup levels and assessing potential risk associated with certain uses. In this article, recreational rates of people attending the Lewiston ''Roundup" rodeo in northwestern Idaho were examined, as well as their perceptions of the safety of consuming fish and game from two Department of Energy (DOE) facilities: the Hanford Site and the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). These are two of DOE's largest sites. Lewiston is closer to Hanford, but is in the same state as INEEL. Men engaged in significantly higher hunting and fishing rates than women, but there were no gender differences in camping and hiking rates. Rates of hunting and camping decreased significantly with age, while rates of hiking were lowest for 31-to 45-yr-olds. Level of education generally was not related to rates of recreation. Over 70% of the subjects ate deer, elk, and self-caught fish; 30-50% ate grouse, moose, and waterfowl; and fewer people ate other game species. Overall, subjects were less concerned about eating the fish and game from INEEL than from Hanford, and more people thought Hanford should be cleaned up completely compared to INEEL. Mean rates of fishing, hiking, and camping all exceeded the DOE's maximum recreational exposure assumption of 14 d/yr used in their future use documents. Although at present people are generally not allowed access to DOE lands for recreation, recreation is one future land use being considered for these federal facilities. Given that some people would engage in multiple activities, the potential exists for people living in the general region of Hanford and INEEL to exceed the 14-d exposure assumption. The relative gender differences in recreational rates mean that men are potentially more at risk, particularly since hunting (on both sites) and fishing (on Hanford) are attractive.