Seafood ChoiCeS

Seafood Choices: Balancing Benefits and Risks
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11762.html
0 SEAFOOD ChOICES
3. The existence of multiple pieces of advice, without a balancing of
benefits and risks, may lead to consumer misunderstanding. As a result,
individuals may under- or overconsume foods relative to their own health
situations.
4. There is inconsistency between current consumer advice in relation
to portion sizes. For example, the FDA/US EPA fish advisory uses a 6-ounce
serving size whereas nutritional advice from some government agencies uses
a 3-ounce serving size.
5. Evidence is insufficient to document changes in general seafood consumption
in response to the 2001 or 2004 methylmercury advisories.
6. It is apparent that messages about consumption often have to be
individualized for different groups such as pregnant females, children, the
general population, subsistence fishermen, and native populations.
7. Involving representatives of targeted subpopulations (e.g., Arctic
Circle campaign) in both the design and evaluation of communications intended
to reach those subpopulations can improve the effectiveness of those
communications.
8. There are models for designing guidance, e.g., using full programs,
that some individual communities (e.g., Arctic Circle campaign) have contributed
to understanding the effects of different modes of health communication
and modifying messages to achieve the desired community and/or
individual response.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1: Appropriate federal agencies should develop tools
for consumers, such as computer-based, interactive decision support and
visual representations of benefits and risks that are easy to use and to interpret.
An example of this kind of tool is the health risk appraisal (HRA),
which allows individuals to enter their own specific information and returns
appropriate recommendations to guide their health actions. The model developed
here provides this kind of evidence-based recommendation regarding
seafood consumption. Agencies should also develop alternative tools for
populations with limited access to computer-based information.
Recommendation 2: New tools apart from traditional safety assessments
should be developed, such as consumer-based benefit-risk analyses. A better
way is needed to characterize the risks combined with benefit analysis.
Recommendation 3: A consumer-directed decision path needs to be
properly designed, tested, and evaluated. The resulting product must undergo
methodological review and update on a continuing basis. Responsible
agencies will need to work with specialists in risk communication and evaluation,
and tailor advice to specific groups as appropriate.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.