IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v23y2003i6p1185-1197.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Weighing Health Benefit and Health Risk Information when Consuming Sport‐Caught Fish

Author

Listed:
  • Barbara A. Knuth
  • Nancy A. Connelly
  • Judy Sheeshka
  • Jacqueline Patterson

Abstract

Fish consumers may incur benefits and risks from eating fish. Health advisories issued by states, tribes, and other entities typically include advice about how to limit fish consumption or change other behaviors (e.g., fish cleaning or cooking) to reduce health risks from exposure to contaminants. Eating fish, however, may provide health benefits. Risk communicators and fish consumers have suggested the importance of including risk comparison information, as well as health risk‐benefit comparisons in health advisory communications. To improve understanding about how anglers fishing in waters affected by health advisories may respond to such risk‐risk or risk‐benefit information, we surveyed Lake Ontario (NY, USA) anglers. We interviewed by telephone 4,750 anglers, 2,593 of which had fished Lake Ontario in the past 12 months and were sent a detailed mail questionnaire (1,245 responded). We posed questions varying the magnitude of health risks and health benefits to be gained by fish consumption, and varied the population affected by these risks and benefits (anglers, children, women of childbearing age, and unborn children). Respondents were influenced by health benefit and health risk information. When risks were high, most respondents would eat less fish regardless of the benefit level. When risks were low, the magnitude of change in fish consumption was related to level of benefit. Responses differed depending on the question wording order, that is, whether “risks” were posed before “benefits.” For a given risk‐benefit level, respondents would give different advice to women of childbearing age versus children, with more conservative advice (eat less fish) provided to women of childbearing age. Respondents appeared to be influenced more strongly by risk‐risk comparisons (e.g., risks from other foods vs. risks from fish) than by risk‐benefit comparisons (e.g., risks from fish vs. benefits from fish). Risk analysts and risk communicators should improve efforts to include risk‐risk and risk‐benefit comparisons in communication efforts, and to clarify to whom the health risks and benefits from fish consumption may accrue.

Suggested Citation

  • Barbara A. Knuth & Nancy A. Connelly & Judy Sheeshka & Jacqueline Patterson, 2003. "Weighing Health Benefit and Health Risk Information when Consuming Sport‐Caught Fish," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1185-1197, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:23:y:2003:i:6:p:1185-1197
    DOI: 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2003.00392.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2003.00392.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2003.00392.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nancy A. Connelly & Barbara A. Knuth, 1998. "Evaluating Risk Communication: Examining Target Audience Perceptions About Four Presentation Formats for Fish Consumption Health Advisory Information," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(5), pages 649-659, October.
    2. V. Kerry Smith & William H. Desvousges & F. Reed Johnson & Ann Fisher, 1990. "Can public information programs affect risk perceptions?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(1), pages 41-59.
    3. Joanna Burger & Karen F. Gaines & Michael Gochfeld, 2001. "Ethnic Differences in Risk from Mercury among Savannah River Fishermen," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(3), pages 533-544, June.
    4. Michael Siegrist & George Cvetkovich & Claudia Roth, 2000. "Salient Value Similarity, Social Trust, and Risk/Benefit Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(3), pages 353-362, June.
    5. Lynn J Frewer & Chaya Howard & Richard Shepherd, 1998. "Understanding public attitudes to technology," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(3), pages 221-235, July.
    6. Branden B. Johnson, 1999. "Ethical Issues in Risk Communication: Continuing the Discussion," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 335-348, June.
    7. Robin Gregory & Robert Mendelsohn, 1993. "Perceived Risk, Dread, and Benefits," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(3), pages 259-264, June.
    8. Rafael A. Ponce & Scott M. Bartell & Eva Y. Wong & Denise LaFlamme & Clark Carrington & Robert C. Lee & Donald L. Patrick & Elaine M. Faustman & Michael 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, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(4), pages 529-542, August.
    9. Joanna Burger & Kerry Kirk Pflugh & Lynette Lurig & Leigh Ann Von Hagen & Stanley Von Hagen, 1999. "Fishing in Urban New Jersey: Ethnicity Affects Information Sources, Pe ception, and Compliance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(2), pages 217-229, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Adam D. DeWeese & Neil E. Kmiecik & Esteban D. Chiriboga & Jeffery A. Foran, 2009. "Efficacy of Risk‐Based, Culturally Sensitive Ogaa (Walleye) Consumption Advice for Anishinaabe Tribal Members in the Great Lakes Region," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5), pages 729-742, May.
    2. Carmen Keller & Michael Siegrist & Vivianne Visschers, 2009. "Effect of Risk Ladder Format on Risk Perception in High‐ and Low‐Numerate Individuals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(9), pages 1255-1264, September.
    3. repec:thr:techub:10014:y:2020:i:1:p:744-752 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Haab, Timothy C. & Whitehead, John C. & Parsons, George R. & Price, Jammie, 2010. "Effects of information about invasive species on risk perception and seafood demand by gender and race," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 586-599, November.
    5. Wim Verbeke & Filiep Vanhonacker & Lynn J. Frewer & Isabelle Sioen & Stefaan De Henauw & John Van Camp, 2008. "Communicating Risks and Benefits from Fish Consumption: Impact on Belgian Consumers' Perception and Intention to Eat Fish," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(4), pages 951-967, August.
    6. Jennifer Dawson & Judy Sheeshka & Donald Cole & David Kraft & Amy Waugh, 2008. "Fishers weigh in: benefits and risks of eating Great Lakes fish from the consumer’s perspective," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 25(3), pages 349-364, September.
    7. Heleen van Dijk & Arnout R.H. Fischer & Lynn J. Frewer, 2011. "Consumer Responses to Integrated Risk‐Benefit Information Associated with the Consumption of Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(3), pages 429-439, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Esperanza López Vázquez, 2011. "A Cross‐Cultural Study of Perceived Benefit Versus Risk as Mediators in the Trust‐Acceptance Relationship," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(12), pages 1919-1934, December.
    2. May Lynn Tan & Alyce Ujihara & Lani Kent & Ilinisa Hendrickson, 2011. "Communicating Fish Consumption Advisories in California: What Works, What Doesn’t," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(7), pages 1095-1106, July.
    3. Joanna Burger & Melanie Hughes McDermott & Caron Chess & Eleanor Bochenek & Marla Perez‐Lugo & Kerry Kirk Pflugh, 2003. "Evaluating Risk Communication about Fish Consumption Advisories: Efficacy of a Brochure versus a Classroom Lesson in Spanish and English," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 791-803, August.
    4. Branden B. Johnson, 2003. "Communicating Air Quality Information: Experimental Evaluation of Alternative Formats," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1), pages 91-103, February.
    5. Joanna Burger & Stuart Harris & Barbara Harper & Michael Gochfeld, 2010. "Ecological Information Needs for Environmental Justice," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(6), pages 893-905, June.
    6. Wim Verbeke & Filiep Vanhonacker & Lynn J. Frewer & Isabelle Sioen & Stefaan De Henauw & John Van Camp, 2008. "Communicating Risks and Benefits from Fish Consumption: Impact on Belgian Consumers' Perception and Intention to Eat Fish," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(4), pages 951-967, August.
    7. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Siegrist, Michael, 2012. "Fair play in energy policy decisions: Procedural fairness, outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 292-300.
    8. Ling Jia & Queena K. Qian & Frits Meijer & Henk Visscher, 2020. "Stakeholders’ Risk Perception: A Perspective for Proactive Risk Management in Residential Building Energy Retrofits in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-25, April.
    9. Robert S. Chirinko & Edward P. Harper, 1993. "Buckle up or slow down? New estimates of offsetting behavior and their implications for automobile safety regulation," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(2), pages 270-296.
    10. Nicolás Bronfman & Pamela Cisternas & Esperanza López-Vázquez & Luis Cifuentes, 2016. "Trust and risk perception of natural hazards: implications for risk preparedness in Chile," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 81(1), pages 307-327, March.
    11. Géraldine Boué & Enda Cummins & Sandrine Guillou & Jean‐Philippe Antignac & Bruno Le Bizec & Jeanne‐Marie Membré, 2017. "Development and Application of a Probabilistic Risk–Benefit Assessment Model for Infant Feeding Integrating Microbiological, Nutritional, and Chemical Components," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2360-2388, December.
    12. Angela Bearth & Marie‐Eve Cousin & Michael Siegrist, 2016. "“The Dose Makes the Poison”: Informing Consumers About the Scientific Risk Assessment of Food Additives," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 130-144, January.
    13. Juliana Martins Ruzante & Valerie J. Davidson & Julie Caswell & Aamir Fazil & John A. L. Cranfield & Spencer J. Henson & Sven M. Anders & Claudia Schmidt & Jeffrey M. Farber, 2010. "A Multifactorial Risk Prioritization Framework for Foodborne Pathogens," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(5), pages 724-742, May.
    14. Timothy C. Earle, 2004. "Thinking Aloud about Trust: A Protocol Analysis of Trust in Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 169-183, February.
    15. Johanna Pfeiffer & Andreas Gabriel & Markus Gandorfer, 2021. "Understanding the public attitudinal acceptance of digital farming technologies: a nationwide survey in Germany," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(1), pages 107-128, February.
    16. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Keller, Carmen & Siegrist, Michael, 2011. "Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: Investigating an explanatory model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3621-3629, June.
    17. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2003. "Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(5), pages 961-972, October.
    18. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim F. Passchier & Nanne K. DeVries, 2007. "How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information? The Impact of Associations with Other Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 715-727, June.
    19. Marilyn M. Schapira & Ann B. Nattinger & Colleen A. McHorney, 2001. "Frequency or Probability? A Qualitative Study of Risk Communication Formats Used in Health Care," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(6), pages 459-467, December.
    20. Yang, Ya Ling, 2020. "Comparison of public perception and risk management decisions of aircraft noise near Taoyuan and Kaohsiung International Airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:23:y:2003:i:6:p:1185-1197. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.