Utilizing an Online Survey to Assess Awareness of and Adherence to Wisconsin's Fish Consumption Advisories *

BACKGROUND:   Local Great Lakes Basin fish are an important source of high quality food for Wisconsin residents. Despite contaminant source elimination and public health educational efforts, Wisconsin anglers continue to have elevated levels of mercury and other contaminants and substantial numbers are at levels high enough to be associated with adverse health outcomes.

METHODS:   The United States Environmental Protection Agency Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) supported evaluation and revision of Wisconsin’s advisory program. A web based survey of Wisconsin anglers over the age of 50 was implemented to better understand the reach of current fish consumption advisory messaging and to assess knowledge of and adherence to the messaging.  

RESULTS:   Responses from the 3,759 participants indicated that approximately 57% changed their behavior in at least 1 of 3 ways due to their concern of exposure to contaminants from consuming fish.  The most common behavior change was avoidance of eating fish from some locations, followed by eating different types of fish meals, and then by eating fewer fish meals.  Participants who reside in coastal counties, who were working, and those with more education were also more likely to adopt all three of these behavior changes.  There were also some differences in advisory knowledge based on location of residence and fish consumption.  Those residing in a coastal county were more likely to report a greater degree of PCB guideline knowledge and those who consume Great Lakes locally caught fish were more likely to report a greater degree of both PCB and mercury guideline knowledge. Participants reported receiving advisory information from a variety of sources with the most common being fishing regulations guide distributed with fishing license (73.3%), followed by DNR website or publication (66.8%), and then warnings posted on waters fished (58.5%).  Despite frequent fish consumption and an age range where benefits as well as risks accrue, only 4% reported receiving dietary guidance from their health care provider.

CONCLUSIONS:  In general, Wisconsin’s consumption guidelines do not appear to discourage men from eating the fish they catch; rather, the most common behavioral changes included modifying the species eaten or the water body source of their meals.  Continued efforts to educate anglers about the risks and benefits of fish consumption are needed, and may be enhanced by targeted outreach and education efforts for inland lakes anglers and by providing individual-specific information on body burden of fish-associated contaminants through enhanced partnerships with health care providers.