4.6 Article

Effects of an Advisory Brochure on Fish Consumption of Urban Anglers in the Great Lakes Region

Journal

RISK ANALYSIS
Volume 38, Issue 7, Pages 1405-1421

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/risa.12953

Keywords

Advisories; fish consumption; urban anglers

Funding

  1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [GL00E1281-0]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Past research has suggested that urban anglers are a group at high risk of being exposed to contaminants from fish consumption. Fish consumption advisories have been used in many regions to encourage healthy fish-eating behaviors, but few studies have been designed to assess whether these advisories actually influence behavior as intended. We conducted a large-scale, randomized experiment to test the influence of an advisory brochure on urban anglers' fish consumption. We collected detailed information on anglers' fish consumption in three urban counties in the Great Lakes region in the summers of 2014 and 2015. We provided a treatment group with fish consumption guidelines in an advisory brochure before the summer of 2015 and compared their change in fish consumption to a control group. The brochure led to a reduction in fish consumption for anglers who ate the most fish; these anglers reduced their consumption of high-contaminant purchased fish (by 0.2 meals/summer for those in 72nd percentile of fish consumption or above), high-contaminant sport-caught fish (by 0.4 meals/summer for those in 87th percentile and above), and low-contaminant sport-caught fish (by 0.3 meals/summer by those in 76th percentile and above). The brochure also reduced sport-caught fish consumption among those anglers who exceeded the advisories in 2014 (by 2.0 meals/summer). In addition, the brochure led to small increases in sport-caught fish consumption (0.4-0.6 meals/summer) in urban anglers who ate very little sport-caught fish (1 meal/summer).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available