A discourse analysis of how citizens, agency managers and the media frame human consumption of mercury in fish: Whose (what) interests are (not) served and why it matters

The purpose of this study is to understand (1) how different actors (the public, the media, and agency managers) frame mercury and fish consumption, (2) how those frames affect those who are at risk, and (3) how to recognize implications of gender and equality in order to improve agency risk assessment, management and communication. In order to do this, residents from Michigan's Upper Peninsula participated in focus groups, community dinners, informal angler interviews and a public meeting during 2004--2005 (N=244). Interviews with state and federal public health, natural resource, food safety and environmental agencies were held from 2006--2007 (N=16). Articles from the New York Times, Washington Post and the Associated Press (1988--Jan 2008: N=37), in addition to transcripts from network television (CBS, ABC, NBC) and news programs (2001--Jan 2008: N=25) represent how the media frames the issue. Results show that all three sample populations frame mercury in fish in terms of a human health issue. A few interviewees from federal agencies and many news articles and transcripts also talk about ecological health in terms reducing mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.;The public frames mercury as a non-issue and focuses on their uncertainty over the risks and benefits of consuming fish. People form their own (often incorrect) ideas about the risks and benefits of consuming fish based on mental-models, trust, and past experience. Government managers and scientists are aware that the current fish consumption information is inadequate, but feel they lack the resources, political will, or control over information dissemination to develop better risk characterization and communication. The media use three main frames to discuss mercury and fish consumption: (1) mercury does not pose a threat to human health, (2) mercury does pose a threat to human health, and (3) information about mercury and fish consumption is uncertain. These risk framing processes leave those at-risk unable maximize the benefits and minimize the risks of consuming fish. It also leads to overly risk averse or overly risk accepting behavior. In addition, the fish consumption advisory program does not help people understand why there are contaminants in fish.;Government process of risk identification, management and communication are supposed to serve those at risk, but in reality serve technocratic agency goals, objectives, and finding priorities. The lack of targeted fish communication is unjust to women of childbearing age and others who consume large amounts of fish because it subjects them to increased risks without giving them the proper information to choose, or benefit from fish consumption, nor does it allow for a discussion of limiting or mitigating the chemical content of fish. In order to improve fish consumption benefit and risk information, government agency managers need to develop more reflexive and rigorous processes for public participation, and implement adaptive governance to develop risk communication and risk policy. In addition, there is a need for holistic multi-disciplinary management of contaminants in fish. The process should incorporate working with stakeholder groups to develop risk assessment and management and create appropriate risk communication messages that are conscious of gendered science practices and positionality.