This paper was presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication in San Antonio, Texas August 2005.
If you have questions about this paper, please contact the author
directly. If you have questions about the archives, email
rakyat [ at ] eparker.org. For an explanation of the subject line,
send email to
[log in to unmask] with just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the
body (drop the "").
(Feb 2006)
Thank you.
Elliott Parker
====================================================================
Perceptions of Seafood/Fish Safety and Media Effects in China
Lan Ni
Doctoral Student
2130 Skinner Building
Department of Communication
University of Maryland
Phone: 301-405-6533
Email: [log in to unmask]
Paper submitted for consideration to the Leslie J. Moeller Award
Competition in the Mass Communication Division of the Association for
Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
April 1, 2005
Abstract
Using qualitative interviewing, this study examined how people in
China perceive the safety of seafood and fish and how the media play
a role in the communication of such risk. Consistent with the
western risk literature, the findings basically confirmed the
importance of personal relevance in risk perception and the necessity
of multiple level efforts or a "holistic approach" in risk
reduction. The unique finding about risk information overload
demands further research on risk prioritization.
0
Perceptions of Seafood/Fish Safety
Perceptions of Seafood/Fish Safety and Media Effects in China
Introduction
Risk communication is becoming an increasingly important area within
the discipline of communication. An average person faces a variety
of risks everyday, either from the food they eat, natural disasters,
or from their working environment.
Increasingly, the risks facing people are no longer confined to a
certain country, region, or even continent. More risks are beginning
to have a global characteristic. Dr. David Heymann, the head of the
World Health Organization's communicable diseases program, pointed
out the wide range of influences from the SARS epidemic (PBS Online
Newshour, March, 2003). Kaufman (2004) also commented that during
the epidemic, local events in China can have global
impact. Therefore, it is necessary to examine how risks are
perceived, communicated, and managed in the global environment.
Recently in the U. S., the safety of fish has become a controversial
issue. Given both nutritional and social benefits from fish (Burger,
Gochfeld, et al., 2001, Burger, McDermott, et al., 2003), the
consumption of fish has also received scrutiny. Lyman (2003, April
4) mentioned that while doctors recommend eating fish in general,
some fish may be tainted with mercury and is not advised for pregnant women.
One important method for the government agencies to warn against
eating certain kind of fish is the issuance of fish advisory. For
example, the joint consumer advisory on methylmercury in fish and
shellfish gave three recommendations for the group of high risk
people (United States Food and Drug Administration & United States
Environmental Protection Agency, 2004). A specific research topic in
this field is the conflicting information in the media about such
advisory and the influence of such information on people's
behaviors. Paturel (2004) reported such conflicting information
about mercury in fish and its influence on pregnant women. The
report finally suggested "variety and moderation."
Although the safety of fish should also be a concern beyond the U.S.,
people outside the U.S. may not perceive the risk of eating fish in
the same way. Different media systems around the world may also
contribute to a completely different picture. In China, the
consumption of fish has experienced dramatic change. According to a
2002 population study of health and wellness in China, the average
consumption of fish and shrimp per day has increased from 11 grams in
1992 to 27.5 grams in 2002 (FFA, March, 2005). In 2004, the price of
regular fish experienced an increase. According to Chinese Fishery
News (2005), this has a lot to do with the growing awareness of the
nutritional value of fish. In addition, the bird flu also caused
many people to switch consumption from livestock such as chicken and
pork to fish and seafood (China Fishery Information Net, July,
2004). Such increase in the consumption of fish and seafood brings
about concerns with the safety of such food.
In addition, the media system in China is still highly controlled by
the government. It has been officially emphasized that the media
should be "the throat and tongue of the Party" and thus will be
managed by the state with no investment from foreign or private
capital (China News Net, January, 2001). The vice director of Zhuhai
TV station, Guo Ling advocated for "upholding the principle of
Party-controlled media and strengthening the ability of directing
public opinion" (February, 2005). Following such a principle, she
suggested keeping the majority of the news reports in a positive
light while criticizing and monitoring negative social
phenomena. These general guidelines for the media definitely have
consequences on how people perceive media messages.
Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to examine how people in
another culture (China in this case) perceive the safety of seafood
and fish and how the media play a role in the communication of this
type of risk.
Literature Review
Given the purpose of this study, the literature review involves the
following: concerns about fish consumption, risk perception and
evaluation, role of communication via media and interpersonal
channels, and risk reduction.
Concerns about Fish Consumption
The risk tradeoff dilemma of eating fish has been a hot topic in
risk communication in the U. S. (e.g., Anderson & Wiener,
1995). According to Burger, Gochfeld, et al. (2001) and Burger,
McDermott, et al. (2003), fish has many benefits, both nutritional
and social. Fish and fishing have many social benefits such as
providing an enjoyable activity and recreation or an important source
of income.
On the other hand, eating fish also has great health
benefits. Anderson and Wiener (1995) identified two distinct health
effects for reducing coronary heart disease (CHD): the indirect
effect on reducing the intake of fat and saturated fatty acids by
substituting fish for other fatty sources of protein and the direct
effect of reducing CHD through fish oils (Anderson & Wiener, 1995,
Kimbrough, 1991).
However, people also get conflicting recommendations regarding fish
when the fish is contaminated with carcinogenic
pollutants. Specifically, Anderson and Wiener (1995) identified
three kinds of risks linked with the consumption of both seafood and
freshwater fish. These are: a) the naturally occurring toxins and
microbes; b) microbial contamination related to pollution and
improper handling between the time of harvest and sale to the
consumer; and c) contamination with environmental chemical pollutants.
In China, seafood and fish are also consumed frequently. This trend
is even more apparent after the bird flu epidemic. However, it is
not clear whether consuming fish and seafood also constitutes risks
or what kinds of risks are recognized. Therefore, it is interesting
to examine whether similar concerns about fish safety are involved in
both the U.S. and China and how people think of these risks. The
first research question is suggested.
RQ1: What constitutes the risks in the seafood/fish consumption in China?
Risk Perception and Evaluation
Risk perception. Covello and Peters (2002) analyzed the impact of
various sources of information on women's perceptions of the risks of
age-related diseases such as breast cancer. They found a variety of
psychological and social factors that affect attitudinal or
behavioral change. Among them, motivation and attention are
especially important. Motivation refers to the "readiness and
interest of the receiver to process information" (p.
378). Motivating factors include social approval, safety, security,
success, pleasure, and achievement. Motivation need is closely
related to beliefs: beliefs about the severity of costs or adverse
outcomes, the probability of an adverse outcome, the efficacy of
protective actions, and one's sense of personal self-efficacy.
On the other hand, attention is the result of the reciprocal
interaction between three determinants: external stimuli, behavior,
and cognitive factors. Selective attention is influenced by a wide
array of factors. For example, people are more likely to attend to
salient and cognitively available risk messages; they seldom review
all the evidence on a particular issue; and they are often more
influenced by a single, salient, colorful case history or human
interest story than by medical or scientific information (Chaiken,
Liberman, & Eagly, 1989; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986).
Slovic (1991) investigated the reasons for the difficulty in
informing the public about risk issues. Risk communicators must
recognize and overcome a number of obstacles that have their roots in
the limitations of scientific risk assessment and the idiosyncrasies
of the human mind.
Of particular concern to this study is the second category. The
limitations of public understanding include the following. People's
perceptions of risk are sometimes inaccurate. First, risk judgments
are influenced by the memorability of past events and the
imaginability of future events. Second, risk information may
frighten and frustrate the public. Sometimes the mere mention of
possible adverse consequences of some product or activity can enhance
people's perceptions of the likelihood of occurrences. People try to
reduce the anxiety generated by uncertainty by denying that
uncertainty, thus making the risk seem either so small that it can
safely be ignored or so large that it clearly should be
avoided. Third, strong beliefs are hard to modify even in the face
of contrary evidence. Fourth, naïve views are easily manipulated by
presentation format.
Sparks and Shepherd (1994) found three major dimensions in the
publics' perceptions of the "risk characteristics" of potential
hazards associated with various aspects of food production and food
consumption: "severity," "unknown," and "number of people exposed."
Risk information seeking and processing. Griffin, Dunwoody, and
Neuwirth (1999) developed a model of risk information seeking and
processing. They wanted to look at predictors of the strategies
people use to process health risk information. Based on Chaiken's
(1980) model of heuristic and systematic processing, their model
includes eight factors: individual characteristics (experience with
risk, demographics, political philosophy), perceived hazard
characteristics (perceived likelihood of coming to harm), affective
response to risk (worry), perceived social pressures to be informed
about risk (as informational subjective norms), perceived amount of
information needed (as information sufficiency), beliefs about the
usefulness and legitimacy of various media channels, perceived
information gathering capacity, and information seeking and
processing strategies.
Risk evaluation. Covello, Sandman, and Slovic (1991) identified
factors important to risk perception and evaluation. These include
the catastrophic potential, familiarity with the risk, understanding
of the mechanism of risk, uncertainty of the risk, personal
controllability, voluntariness of exposure to the risk, effects on
children, manifestation of effects on future generations,
identification of victim, dreadfulness of the effects, trust in
institutions, media attention, accident history, equity in the
distribution of risks and benefits, benefits, reversibility of
consequences, personal stake, origin of the risks (whether it's
caused by human action or acts of nature).
This list of factors includes both the objective risk levels and
more subjective social elements. Covello and Peters (2002)
emphasized factors other than objective statistics in the decisions
about health risk. These and the set of 15 factors identified in
Covello, Peters, Wojtecki, and Hyde (2001) all overlap with the ones
in Covello, Sandman, and Slovic (1991). Among them, dread,
understanding, and control are the leading determinants to perceived
risks and trust and credibility of source are among the most important.
It is thus clear from this set of factors that risk and risk
acceptability should be distinguished. As Covello, Sandman and
Slovic (1991) pointed out, the level of risk is only one variable
that determines acceptability of the risk. Other factors such as
fairness, benefits, alternatives, control, and voluntariness will
also play an important role. Different people weight the various
factors according to their own values, sense of risk, and stakes in
the outcome. This made the risk acceptability eventually a value
question rather than a technical question.
Given the extensive research on the perceptions of risks, it is
worthwhile to examine whether the same factors influenced the risk
perceptions in China and how they affect the risk
acceptability. What factors play a more important role than the
others? Therefore, I propose the second research question.
RQ2: What factors influence the perception of seafood/fish risks in China?
Role of Communication
Covello, von Winterfeldt, and Slovic (1986) defined risk
communication as "any purposeful exchange of information about health
or environmental risks between interested parties" (p. 172). It is
"the act of conveying or transmitting information between parties
about (a) levels of health or environmental risks; (b) the
significance or meaning of health or environmental risks; or (c)
decisions, actions, or policies aimed at managing or controlling
health or environmental risks" (p. 172). Covello, von Winterfeldt,
and Slovic included as interested parties as "government agencies,
corporations and industry groups, unions, the media, scientists,
professional organizations, public interest groups, and individual
citizens" (p. 172).
Different channels. Risk communication involves different
channels. Media are certainly an important source of
information. Lichtenberg and MacLean (1991) pointed out the interest
in mass media because "the media constitute the source of much of the
public's information about risks and technologies" (p.
158). Messages from experts and industry representatives are
mediated by mass media before reaching the publics. In fact, the
media are indicated to be the major source of information for people
about health issues (McCallum, Hammond, & Covello, 1991).
However, Covello and Peters (2002) found problems in media
reporting. The inadequacies and deficiencies in media reporting
include selective and biased reporting, oversimplifications,
distortions, and failure to provide important background
information. In particular, their study on women's perceptions of
disease risks found that information placing risks in context is
seldom provided.
Another key problem in risk communication through media is
conflicting information, which may lead to various
consequences. Cozzens and Contractor (1987) examined one such
consequence, media skepticism. They found that the exposure to
nonmediated information that conflicts with mediated information
would increase media skepticism.
Lichtenberg and MacLean (1991) examined the relationship between
media coverage and public opinion as well as the relationship between
media and reality.
In response to Kepplinger and Mathes' (1987) conclusion that the
media do not convey an accurate picture of reality and that "this new
portrayal of reality by the media leads to a fundamental change in
the publics' views" (p. 16), Lichtenberg and MacLean argued the
contrary with regards to both the media content and media effects.
In terms of the relationship between media coverage and public
opinion, Lichtenberg and MacLean (1991) thought that media do not
necessarily change public opinion. As argued by Mazur (1981), as
media coverage of a controversy increases, public opposition to it
also increases, regardless of whether the coverage is predominantly
negative or not.
Lichtenberg and MacLean (1991) also examined the relationship between
media coverage and "reality." They basically argued that reality
cannot be "objectively" portrayed because large chunks of the reality
would have to be left out. People are only interested in the new,
unusual, changing, and things likely to affect us in ways we need to
know about.
On the other hand, Covello and Peters (2002) found the importance of
social relationships. Women like to discuss in peers, who are
thought to be more salient and believable than third parties. This is
consistent with the literature on innovation diffusion (Rogers,
1990). The above conceptualization is helpful in providing the focus
of examining the risk communication process in China. Therefore, I
propose the following research questions.
RQ3: What are the major types of media people rely on concerning
seafood/fish safety in China?
RQ4a: How do people make meaning out of framed media messages about
seafood/fish risks in China? RQ4b: What are the effects of media
messages on people regarding seafood/fish risks in China?
Risk Reduction
Renn and Levine (1991) discussed various objectives of risk
communication. In the case of fish consumption, the objective of
risk reduction seems to be particularly relevant and thus is the
focus of this paper.
Use and effectiveness of fish advisories. In the U.S., in order to
reduce the risk of eating fish, different government agencies have
taken the precautionary measures to warn people of the potential
risks in fish consumption. Therefore, both FDA and EPA have issued
fish consumption advisories (United States Food and Drug
Administration & United States Environmental Protection Agency,
2004). Fish advisories seem to be a good risk reduction
strategy. However, in the U. S., the compliance rate is low (Burger,
Gochfeld, et al., 2001, Burger, McDermott, et al., 2003). This has a
lot to do with how people perceive risks and the underlying reasons
for fishing. Jardine (2003) identified the factors contributing to
compliance, which include: awareness and knowledge of advisories,
type and level of information conveyed, and trust in the agency
responsible for issuing the advisory. Additional reasons for low
compliance (Burger, Gochfeld, et al., 2001) include: conflicting
advisories issued by different agencies, controversies involving
health benefits versus the risks from consuming fish, and the
unwillingness to act on the advisories because of personal
beliefs. Therefore, addressing the different needs of people seems
critical for changing their consumption patterns.
Many researchers suggested solutions. For example, Jardine (2003)
argued that interactive, meaningful communication and the opportunity
to participate in the process of developing advisories are the
keys. Public participation provides social and cultural information
to the process. It also increases public involvement and compliance
(Jardine, 2000, p. 462). Public participation process needs to
consider consumer objectives and desires in addition to the
objectives of the issuing agency.
Two levels of efforts. Given the health benefits of fish, eating
less fish in order to reduce the risks of getting cancer does not
appear a wise solution. Rather, many researchers suggested solutions
at different levels. Anderson and Wiener (1995) proposed both
reducing the levels of pollution in fish and educating consumers to
substitute fish with low levels of pollutants for those with high
levels of pollutants.
At the individual level, Anderson and Wiener (1995) also suggested
that the potential magnitude of the risks of eating fish is governed
by the severity of the hazard and the consumers' ability to reduce or
eliminate the hazard. In particular, they suggested the following
ways to reduce the hazard from all three sources.
First, microbial contamination can be reduced by proper cooking of
the store-bought fish; and the risk from improper handling is smaller
for anglers who eat fish soon after harvest. Second, even though the
hazard associated with naturally occurring toxins may be beyond the
consumers' control, such hazard can be reduced through education and
harvest restrictions. This is because species with naturally
occurring toxins tend to be localized both in time and space, and
tend to be recognized easily by the public. For the third source of
hazard, contamination with environmental pollutants, people can
reduce the risk by avoiding certain species of fish and not eating
selected portions of a fish.
More importantly, macro level efforts are needed. Jardine (2003)
mentioned the "holistic" approach to resource management. The need
for fish advisories is just one component within the broader issue of
the overall changes to the environment. Participants in his study
felt that the problems could not be separated from fish consumption,
fish conservation, wildlife conservation, forest management, and
water quality. They felt that the government should adopt a more
"holistic" approach to the management of activities affecting natural
resources.
The primary concern in Jardine's (2003) study was that the
government should engage in restoring the river environment where it
would not be necessary to issue advisories. The focus on remedial
actions such as advisories should not absolve government and industry
from the more basic problem of mitigating environmental damages
(Jardine, p. 467). In other words, people want to see the underlying
cause of the advisory controlled or even eliminated, rather than just
putting an advisory in place. The above suggested the risk reduction
methods at different levels and my final research question deals with
the case in China.
RQ5: How do people in China think of different risk reduction methods
in terms of seafood/fish consumption?
Summary of Research Questions
RQ1: What constitutes the risks in the seafood/fish consumption in China?
RQ2: What factors influence the perception of seafood/fish risks in China?
RQ3: What are the major types of media people rely on concerning
seafood/fish safety in China?
RQ4a: How do people make meaning out of framed media messages about
seafood/fish risks in China? RQ4b: What are the effects of media
messages on people regarding seafood/fish risks in China?
RQ5: How do people in China think of different risk reduction
methods in terms of seafood/fish consumption?
Methods
This study used qualitative interviews as the major method. This
method is appropriate because it aims to explore how people make
meaning of the safety issues related to the consumption of
seafood/fish and needs to tap into how they themselves experience the
issues.
Sampling of Participants
The selection of participants was based on convenience. I used
personal contacts and asked people to suggest others who might be
interested in taking my interviews. In all, I conducted six
interviews with women in China. All interviewees are females because
women tend to be the major care-takers and food providers in the
family, so they may have more comprehensive understanding of issues
such as fish safety.
Procedures
Because the researcher is currently residing outside China, all
interviews were done through the telephone and each lasted between 40
minutes to one hour. These interviews were audio-recorded for
purposes of accuracy in data analysis. Participants were all
informed of the interviewers' wish to audiotape and agreed before the
interviews began. The interview questions were essentially the same,
with a few minor adjustments in the order and wording. The
interviews were conducted in Chinese so that the participants did not
feel the constraints in language. Sample interview questions look
like these: "What comes to your mind when I mention safety, of
seafood/fish?" and "Where do you hear or see things about seafood/fish safety?"
Data Analysis
I transcribed every interview verbatim so as to be more faithful to
what the participant said. I mainly followed the way of data
analysis proposed by Wolcott (1994), which is "the identification of
essential features and the systematic description of
interrelationships among them." (p. 12). I used the theoretical
framework regarding different perceptions about culture to guide my
data analysis. I collected, reduced and organized the data according
to my research questions.
Results
What Constitutes the Risks in the Seafood/fish Consumption in China?
Participants' responses regarding this research question can be
sorted into the following themes: risks from natural toxins, risks
from the market process, and risks from pollution, the limited
conception of safety concerns about seafood/fish, safety concerns
arising from profit-seeking vendors, and the distinction between
eating at home and dining out.
Risks from Natural Toxins and Microbes
The first category of risk source comes from the natural toxins and
microbes. For the participants, seafood in general and one specific
type of freshwater fish, the puffer, seem to constitute the major
concerns in their consumption.
Several participants mentioned puffer immediately after being asked
about seafood/fish safety. One gave a detailed account, "…And we had
puffer in the dinner at a restaurant. Then the inside of the puffer
hasn't been cleaned thoroughly. So then my colleagues had
stomachache, and some were in a coma, and we were very scared. So
then they had to go through all kinds of things, like gastric lavage,
infusion, and disinfection. It hurt very much."
Microbes are also found to contribute to the risks of consuming
seafood. One person had a personal experience that got her sick,
"Once my friends and I went to Yantan, a coastal city famous for
seafood…I remember very clearly that some of seafood was not cooked
at all, just raw. We also had those drunken shrimps, when you soaked
live shrimps into the liquor and by the time you ate the shrimps,
they were still alive. And that made me sick, mentally, right at the
banquet. I just felt uncomfortable. And then, I remember not
immediately but after a while, I began to have diarrhea, pretty
serious…From then on, I began to be a little scared of seafood."
Risks from the Market Process
Another major source of risk identified is from the market process,
between the time of harvest to the time when the consumers actually
eat such food. One participant said, "Before the food gets to the
consumers, there are many stages that might cause safety
concerns. For example, transportation, storage, putting on the
shelf, and then the consumer purchases it. There is the expiration
date, but some consumers do not pay attention to that."
Risks from Environmental Pollution
Risks from environmental pollution were almost always the first
thing that many participants could think of when asked about what
they had in mind when talking about the safety of seafood/fish. In
particular, several participants mentioned exactly the same local
incident regarding pollution and fish even though they were
interviewed separately. This showed the salience of such an
issue. For example, one said, "I just think of the fish being
polluted, yes, that's the most important. For example, here in
Nanjing, when you go to lakes such as Xuanwu lake, you sometimes see
the dead fish floating on the lake. I know some people take the fish
home to eat, but I never dare to do that. Who knows what's in the
lake that killed the fish?"
Some participants also talked about the source of pollution and made
the distinction between seafood and freshwater fish. For example,
one said, "We can start from the origin of the fish, whether it's
from the sea, or cultivated. If the latter, then the environment is
a big concern. Whether the environment has met the standards,
whether it's low in lead, and free from mercury. If it's from the
sea, then there's also concern. Nowadays, the environmental
pollution is at the global level, not national or regional."
Limited Conception
People generally have a limited conception about the risks from
consuming seafood/fish. They do not think of this as a widespread
risk or concern. The major reason seems to be the traditional habit
of eating seafood and fish in China and the consequent
assumptions. Eating fresh fish is one major reason. One said,
Normally, if people have diarrhea, they feel it's more likely to be
caused by meat, rather than seafood and fish. Because in China,
consumers strongly believe in eating only fresh seafood and
fish. But meat usually has relatively long storage time. Also, it
has become a common practice that for example, if you go to a
restaurant and you order a fish meal, then the waiter will show you
the live fish and you can choose the freshest one just in front of you.
Another interviewee also said very explicitly that she only thought
of lobsters and crabs when asked about safety. She said, "lobsters,
if they are not clean, there will be some microbes in their
lungs. Crabs, if they are dead, will kill the people
too. Otherwise, I have not really thought of anything…But fish,
well, I have never thought about that."
Safety Concerns Arising from Profit-seeking Vendors
There are many vivid examples related to this concern, and a typical
one is the following, "For example, once I find some dried shrimp, or
other things, they looked red. Then you know it's
abnormal. Sometimes people want to make money and they used certain
chemical to soak such dried stuff. Soaked in such chemical, the
dried shrimp looks very pretty, but we cannot eat it. Also,
sometimes like eel… you will find they are exceptionally big. You
know what, we don't buy. Because sometimes again for money's sake,
people will put in endocrine or even contraceptive drugs into the
fish feed. Then the eel or shrimp will grow very fast, and grow to
be extra big. Then if we eat them, we will become fat and it's harmful."
The Distinction between Eating at Home and Dining Out
When asked to think about seafood/fish safety, almost all
participants mentioned the distinction between dining out and eating
at home. One person said, "the examples [of fish consumption
concern] from home cooking are very few, because my family pays much
attention to selecting and cooking food. But things are different
when you dine out. You do not know how those restaurants are cooking
the food. So you hear many examples where people go out for dinner
during holidays, and then they get diarrhea after that." Another
interviewee said confidently that "the shrimps she [her mother]
bought herself are always very fresh, jumping up and down. So no
problem exists…So what I'm mainly concerned about is when dining out."
What Factors Influence the Perception of Seafood/fish Risks in China?
Many factors influence risk perceptions. They can be classified
into the following themes.
Overall Seriousness
The overall seriousness of the issue is not rated very high. One
major reason is the regional difference. Fish safety concern seems
to be localized or regionalized. As one interviewee said, "I
personally do not think it's a very serious problem, I mean on a
national scale…Maybe in certain regions where the environmental
pollution is serious, this kind of problem is big. But in other
areas, it's still acceptable. There is definitely regional
difference. First of all, food has the seasonal and regional
differences. Some regions are famous for certain seafood/fish. Also
some regions are heavy industry areas, so they have more pollution."
The other thing is related to dosage. One participant reasoned,
"some bad food has to reach certain dosage before the toxin is
displayed. Also human body has a natural defense mechanism. If you
take in a small amount of toxin, the human body can handle it and
discharge it."
This applies to Chinese people because of the diet tradition. One
interviewee said very clearly, "So I feel, since, seafood and fish
are not a very big part of our diet, at least for many people I know
of…Even some families eat it more frequently, they usually change the
kinds they eat, say today they have this kind of fish, and tomorrow
it will be some kind of shrimp. So the harm may not be that concentrated."
Relevance and Identifiable Victim
Almost all participants expressed the similar idea that they will
begin to appreciate the seriousness of the issue only if a close
friend or family member has been seriously harmed from eating certain
kind of seafood or fish.
One related example from an interviewee is that she will not pay
attention to the risk because "first, I do not live on the coast. So
the chance of myself eating this kind of fish is pretty low…well
since I do not live on the coast, this does not threaten me
directly. So the risk is relatively small, it's not worth my time and energy."
Similarly, another interviewee said she is now paying attention and
willing to do further research because she is personally involved:
I want to do some research on which fish is from deep sea, which is
from shallow sea. This is because I feel the fish from deep sea
might be safer. But given my current knowledge and distinguishing
ability, I still cannot make the distinction. However, these are
things that I eat very often, that I cannot avoid. So this kind of
risks that I frequently encounter, then I would like to know more about it.
Serious Consequences: Life/death, Hidden, Number of People, and
Irreversibility
The nature of the risks themselves also affects people's
perceptions. One major theme is whether it is a life-r-death
risk. One interview said, "The things I told you before, those are
just some minor symptoms, like diarrhea, not very serious. But this
can actually kill people! Of course I'm more nervous about this… So
if it's really that serious, to me, if it's life or death, then I
would go out of my way to know more about such issues."
Another major factor is whether it is hidden risk, as explained by
one interview, "But something is more scary, because they may be
hidden, you don't even know, or can tell. Those scared me. If I can
tell, or taste, then it's fine. But if you do not even know, then
what." Other factors include the number of people involved and the
irreversibility of the damage.
Change in Life Stages: Marriage and Pregnancy
Some participants also unanimously mentioned the factor of different
life stages and its influence on risk perception. Since all but one
of my interviewees are in their late twenties, many of them mentioned
pregnancy.
For example, one said, "I feel only when I'm expecting a baby. In my
pregnancy, from my pregnancy to the time when my baby is, around 3 or
4 years old, I will pay much attention to such issues. I know that
the new-born babies are especially vulnerable to the food they
eat. I will try my best not to let it be harmed."
Getting married also changed some of their perceptions. For example,
one said, "when I was little, I seldom ate fish anyway. And then my
mother cooked for me at home, so I didn't worry about it very
much. But now I'm married, and I need to cook myself, then I tend to
pay more attention to such issues."
Taking for Granted
By taking certain actions such as avoiding, some participants do not
feel they are at risks. They are taking things for granted. For
example, one said, "I'm a pretty lazy person. [Even if I become a
mother or caretaker of the family], when I buy and cook food, I will
only choose those ordinary food, like the ones that people have been
eating for many many years. Then I will not be concerned about their
safety. I will not try those things that few people have eaten
before or those that are said to be very nutritious, I will just not
try. So I will not worry about them."
Not Immediate Concern: Other Things in Life
Many participants showed that the perception of risks from consuming
seafood and fish is not their priority because they are faced with
many other concerns. One said, "It's true that it's important. But
I can avoid it. I can temporarily not eat any of such food. Also,
in this season, I do not consume a lot of fish or shrimp. At most
some fish soup. So at the moment, I don't think this constitutes a
big threat to my life. And I will not place it on the top of my list."
Another one talked more about other people she knew. "I feel this
issue has not received its due attention. Say, the people around me,
most of them are concerned about how to make more money, how to buy a
bigger house, and how to enjoy life better, or to make sure the life
quality after retirement, or to get their children good education or
jobs. These are their major concerns, mostly financial concerns."
Risk Comparison: Inundation with Other risks, so Cannot Worry Too Much
The idea of "cannot worry too much" is echoed by many
participants. For example, one commented "Well, the pollution of
food is simply too common. For a while, there are all these
different reports of food being polluted…well, almost everything you
see, a very high percentage of things has been reported." A similar
example is this, "And after you've seen these, if you follow all the
advisories, then you'd better eat nothing. So in this environment,
you kind of feel accustomed to all the reports, and you gradually
learn to accept these… well you gradually consider these to be
normal. Because the probability of eating polluted food is so high…"
Individual Factors: Personal Health Condition
Risk perception is also affected by individual factors such as
personal health condition. Some participants are more alert to risks
like this because their health is not very good. For example, one
interview said,
I feel I am more concerned with this kind of issues than the average
people. I feel this way because sometimes other people would laugh
at me. They would say things like, why are you so careful about
everything? If you want to eat, just eat it. For example, when we
eat some kind of fish from the lake, I will say it tastes strange,
maybe there's something wrong about it. [I'm more concerned than
others] because one thing is my personal health condition. I'm
pretty sensitive to food that's not fresh. I will feel uncomfortable
after eating that kind of food. But others may not even feel a thing!"
Major Media Concerning Seafood/fish Safety in China?
Based on the responses from participants, there are in general three
major types of media that serve very different functions: TV, print
media, and the internet.
TV: Reports of Unethical Practices
To some extent, the TV programs serve as a good tool to monitor the
market and help the government strengthen regulations. Many
participants mentioned this function and acknowledged its
usefulness. For example, one said, "Also on TV, nowadays, there are
many programs featuring the quality of food. For example, in CCTV,
there is this program called Quality Control. It usually shows
things like when certain government agencies inspected some vendors
or processing companies of food, and if there's any problem, they
will take measures to either demand fines or ask the companies to
improve their quality condition."
Print Media: Mainly to Inform
Newspaper and books usually help people gain some knowledge in food
safety. For example, one interviewee said, "In the newspaper, they
usually tell you how to distinguish between good and bad or rotten
food…There is one section called Tips in Life, they will have a list
of things, one two three four, I have read those."
Another one said, "in the newspaper, like the safety instructions of
eating certain kind of food. In addition, from certain books,
especially cook books, or recipes. They tell me how to cook healthy,
and what to pay attention to."
Making Meaning Out of Framed Media Messages in China
Such framed media messages usually are considered pretty
credible. The most salient theme is that the relative influence of
media is more important than credibility. For example, one said,
I feel that it's not the problem of credibility, but the issue of
influence. For example, CCTV is very authoritarian and
influential. So whenever it reports some food safety issues, all
levels of government will take actions, such as the health
department, the industrial and commercial related departments. They
will actually take measures to solve these reported
problems. However, if things were reported through some local media,
then not many people will pay attention, and its influence will be
greatly limited. And the government will also not take immediate actions.
Effects of Media Messages on People Regarding Seafood/fish Risks
This question elicited many interesting themes. When exposed to an
article about a coral fish that contains toxins and kills people, the
immediate reactions are fear and nervousness, but the effects
afterwards vary. The reactions to general risk media messages can be
best explained by what one participant said "half and half."
Immediate Effects
When presented with an article about certain poisonous coral fish,
most people immediately felt fear and expressed the willingness to
avoid. For example, one said, "I feel very scary. Then I will try
to recall whether I have eaten this kind of fish before. Then among
my friends, whether they will have an opportunity to come across this
kind of fish. I will think about this. Then if I haven't eaten
before, or my friends will not come across it, then I will feel more
assured and relieved."
The easy response was to avoid. One said, "I don't know whether this
is really that serious, as I cannot verify it. But since this is
reported, I will try my best not to eat it. Among so many good
things, why do I have to eat this and get poisoned?"
Half and Half
However, such responses only applied to the risks that they can
avoid. When asked about hearing other messages related to risks, one
participant considered the effects to be "half and half." On the one
hand, a lot of the participants expressed the willingness to exercise
personal control, but on the other hand, they also felt frustration
of things beyond their control.
Following Advice and Exercising Personal Control. One typical
response is as follows, "Generally, if I see something from the news,
I will try to follow it. For example, if I know that certain brand of
food is not good, then I will definitely not buy it." The specific
methods people use to reduce risks will be discussed in research
question five.
Doing more research. Media messages also prompted a few participants
to do further research about fish risks. For example, one said,
"when I see this kind of news, I will probably go online to find out
how this kind of coral fish looks like. Since, as you know, I have
never heard of this fish before, and I don't know what it looks
like. I would very much like to find out to get myself prepared."
However, one salient pattern is that such effect is usually indirect:
participants usually did not read things about fish risks per se, but
they took the individual initiatives after they read something else
related to fish risks. For example, one said,
So I'm preparing to learn more about this, say, I want to know which
types of fish are from the deep sea, and which are from the shallow
sea area. My attitude changed mainly because of some news reports in
the media. For example, they are not only focusing on seafood,
basically they are talking about the environmental pollution around
the globe, and some pollution in the shallow sea area. And then I
naturally link this to the food I'm eating. I was thinking, the
seafood I liked so much, they grow in this environment and may not be
very safe.
This "naturally linking" process also appeared in the following
quote, "Sometimes when I watch programs in economics, I will notice
something related to issues such as food safety. Because in those
programs, I can often see things related to pollution. But I have
never gone to watch things specifically related to this issue."
Frustration and Helplessness. However, the other half that the
participants usually feel is the sense of frustration. A salient
theme is perhaps the so called stupor resulting from too much
information about risks.
For example, one interviewee recalled, "among us, we sometimes make
jokes that since every week, that Quality Control TV program will
report one type of food that is either polluted or contains some
poisonous elements, every year, we need to cross out 48 kinds of food
from our food list. Of course, I have to say, it's not that one kind
of food is totally not edible, it's just certain brands within that
kind of food will be banned."
Another related to the tradeoff between delicious food and risks in
the food, "because in China, such things happen all the time. As
long as it doesn't kill… many people are willing to give up a little
part of their health, but they will never give up the delicious
food…The reality is, these kind of reports [about dirty lobsters] are
so widespread on the internet, but the lobster sellers still have
very good business."
As a result, the fatalistic feeling of depending on luck appeared
after seeing the media messages. Expressions like "helpless," "you
have to eat something," "if I don't eat this, or eat that, then what
do I eat?" "things beyond my control," and "then it's just bad luck"
appear very frequently in the interviews.
One participant said, "For us, the whole process through which the
food arrives at us is not controlled by us. I feel we are more
passive. Even if we have concerns, we have to eat something
eventually…So in fact, we have very little option." Another
interviewee expressed similar ideas, "…but sometimes you cannot worry
too much…because nowadays, too much fish or other things are
polluted. Your choice is usually random. As an individual, you are
constrained in your knowledge and ability to distinguish which is
polluted and which is not…you have very little option. So to a great
extent, I'm usually helpless."
Risk Reduction Methods in Seafood/fish Consumption?
Most people will take actions to reduce risks arising from consuming
seafood and fish. Based on the response from participants, these
actions involve different stages from purchase, preparation, cooking,
eating, and dining out. In addition, many of the participants
expressed the notion that many factors in risk reduction were beyond
their control and that the government should play a more active role.
Purchase
To reduce risks from consuming seafood and fish, many people start
from the purchase behavior, as reflected in picking food and
vendors. Many mentioned the criteria of "alive" and "jumping up and
down" when selecting fish. Secondly, they constantly talked about
preferring decent supermarkets over farmers' markets.
Preparation
Fish or seafood is also cleaned well before cooking to make sure it
is safe. For example, one interviewee said, "in preparation,
cleaning the internal parts also help to reduce the poisoning
elements." Another gave more detailed methods, "when I kill and
clean the fish, there is a layer of black membrane, which is
poisonous. In addition, there is a vein on the back of the fish, and
that is to be removed."
Cooking
Two major themes appeared in reducing risks through cooking: the
principle of high temperature to ensure the food is well-cooked and
the use of different cooking methods depending on the degree of
freshness of the food. One interview said, "if the fish is fresh, we
usually steam it to keep its original taste as well as to conserve
its protein. If the fish is on the shelf for a while, we usually
braise it in soy sauce…We never eat seafood that's been overnight."
Eating
The way in which seafood is eaten helps reduce risks too. For
example, one interviewee said, "for crabs, we need to eat them while
hot. If they get cold, something inside will be bad for our
body. Also, we usually have a lot of ginger and vinegar, they
prevent you from having diarrhea and make the crabs taste better."
Dining out
Since dining out poses the biggest risks of eating fish and seafood,
many people mentioned methods to reduce such risks, including the
choice of place, tasting, chef tasting, and the showing of raw materials.
For example, one said, "when I dine out, I need to choose some decent
restaurants and make sure the food there is relatively
fresh." Another shared her experience with tasting, "But when I take
a bite, the texture, I have experience. The meat of dead crabs
tastes soft, spongy, but the meat of fresh crabs is usually very
tense, and very tasty. If I feel it does not taste right, I will
never eat it."
In terms of fish such as puffer, one interviewee commented, "so now
sometimes when people are not sure, they would ask the chef to taste
the puffer first, to make sure that it is safe. But then, if you
don't eat a lot, it may not be that serious. For example, if you
only take one bite, the effect may not be that obvious."
Responsibility of the Government
In addition to the personal efforts, many participants pointed out
the importance of the involvement of government in reducing
risks. Two themes are related to this, the lack of precautionary
actions from the government and the lack of control on the source of
the problems.
Lack of precaution. Many participants expressed the disadvantages of
media reports in only reporting problems that have already
occurred. For example, one participant commented, "this is how
things work. Usually the media will try to move things, and then the
government will follow up. So usually the journalists may report
their findings about say, an illegal food processing center. They
very often will engage in secretive investigations, and then reveal
it in the media. Then after a few days, you will see, well, the
government has taken measures to stop such operations of those
processing centers."
Lack of control on the source of problems. Many participants felt
very strongly about this. One of them said, "also I feel that there
needs to be more strict regulations in the industry…Sometimes in the
local TV channels, I did see the efforts… because consumers are not
expected to know everything. Rather, the government or related
agencies need to strengthen their monitoring and regulating."
Another one commented, "because I feel that the ultimate solution is
not in whether to buy certain food, but the source of such food. So
I feel the government should pay more attention to this and be
willing to spend money, and to promote the awareness of such issue in
the media. At the same time, the consumers need to know more about
this. So the solution depends on both sides. Only by advising the
consumers as to what to buy and what not to eat without solving the
problem in the source of such food, then like today I cannot eat the
fish from Guangdong, and tomorrow I cannot eat the fish from
Shanghai, and then in a year, I have nothing left to eat. Then am I
supposed to starve to death?"
Interpersonal Communication
The major themes regarding interpersonal communication about risks
are the following: only common problems with relevance to most people
are discussed, the occasion of such communication requires choice,
topics are not directly related to risks. However, the responses
from one participant appeared to form an exception.
Communication problems with relevance. Most participants said they
do not usually share just any risk information about fish. One said,
"Unless it's something that everybody knows, for example, lobsters,
crabs, those that we all eat often, then if I tell them something is
wrong with these, they will probably pay attention."
Choice of occasion. Some participants mentioned the unnaturalness of
talking about things like this at work. For example, one said, "I
just feel that if I'm at work, and then I suddenly say to the other
colleagues that, tell you something, some fish is poisonous, you
cannot eat it. Then I feel it will not receive a lot of
attention." So the best occasion seems to be when dining out, as one
said, "If I dine out and when we order, I will probably mention it
casually, that we should not order this kind of fish. When we are
dining out, when we order, then everybody is in that environment."
Indirect topics. It seems most of the time, seafood and fish safety
are not directly talked about. For example, one said, "however, we
do not talk about seafood and fish safety directly. Usually it's
when we talk about those places to visit, or restaurants to have
dinner in, then we will casually remind each other of things like,
well this restaurant is not very reliable, or in that city someone
once had food poisoning." In addition, the health benefits of fish
are mentioned more than the risks. For example, one said, "I have
also heard a lot from other people too. Ever since I was young, I
was told that I need to have more fish, fish is good, it makes you
clever, even helps you get high grades at schools."
Exception. An exceptional case among the participants came from the
only one not in her late twenties but in her sixties. In particular,
she not only shared information, found the information useful, but
also compared the information between interpersonal and media
channels. For example, she said, "Right now, I'm doing morning
exercises with a group of old ladies, every day. They will sometimes
mention things like how to clean stuff, what food cannot be
eaten. They are very experienced, because they are housewives,
cooking for many years. For example…I remember when I cleaned fish
before, I didn't really pay attention to the black membrane. Now
these old ladies told me to remove the black membrane. So now I began
to do that" She also said,
I feel the information is mostly the same, consistent. For example,
when I first learned about the black membrane, I didn't really
believe it. I was wondering what's wrong with the black
membrane. So then I looked up other books, such as some cook
books. To my surprise, the two cook books that I consulted both said
the same thing. So then I became convinced.
Discussion and Conclusions
Summary of Major Findings
This study examined how people perceive seafood/fish risks and how
the media play a role in China. The major findings are as follows.
Most participants perceived seafood/fish risks from different
sources: natural toxins, market process, and pollution. Another
three themes speak to the special case in China: limited conception
of safety concerns, the safety concerns arising from profit-seeking
vendors, and the distinction between eating at home and dining out.
The influencing factors on risk perceptions include the
following. Personal relevance is consistently the most important
factor. Seriousness of consequences, the different life stages,
other concerns in life and personal health condition also influenced
perceptions. In addition, the overflow of risk information prevents
the participants from focusing attention on any particular risk issue.
Three major types of media are involved in risk communication and
each serves very different functions. TV has the major function of
reporting unethical practices in the market. Print media mainly
inform people of safe health behaviors. The Internet is used mainly
for those who want to do more active information search. Media
messages are considered pretty credible, but to most people,
credibility was less important than the influence and power of media
to actually make a difference.
Finally, people's reactions to risk messages can be explained by
what one participant said "half and half." People generally try to
do what they can to reduce risks, but they also feel strongly that
the government needs to make efforts to reduce the source of the risks.
Source of Risks
Many sources of seafood/fish risks are consistent with what the
literature has identified: risks from natural toxins, risks from the
market process, and risks from pollution. However, more salient
themes are specific to the special case in China. First of all,
people generally have a limited conception about the risks from
consuming seafood/fish. They do not think of this as a widespread
risk or concern. The major reason seems to be the traditional habit
of eating seafood and fish in China and the consequent
assumptions. Eating fresh fish helps people feel safe.
Different from the western literature, the safety concerns arising
from profit-seeking vendor becomes a separate and salient theme. It
has a lot to do with the current stage in China. The focus on
economic development and profit making has led to many unethical
behaviors. This constitutes the major safety concerns.
Influencers on Risk Perceptions
Aldoory (2001) suggested the key function of personal relevance in
women's risk perceptions. This study in China confirmed what she
found and identified personal relevance as the single most important
factor. Personal relevance is further reflected in such factors as
the effect of different life stages and personal health
condition. The more objective factors such as the seriousness of
consequences also played a role, but not as important. A theme not
found in research and literature from the west is the comparative
importance of issues. Specifically, other concerns in life in
general and the overflow of risk information in particular prevent
the participants from focusing attention on any particular risk
issue. The feeling of inundation is repeatedly mentioned. This
unexpected finding makes it an important task for risk communicators
to think about risk comparison and risk prioritization.
Risk comparison. Covello (1991) discussed the usefulness and
weaknesses of risk comparison. Risk comparison seems to be a good
way to communicate risks to the publics and to improve their
perceptions and understanding of health and environmental risks. In
particular, risk comparison helps put risks in psychological
perspective, provides a conceptual yardstick, improves the
understanding of risk magnitudes, and is more intuitively meaningful
than absolute numerical probabilities.
Although risk comparison has certain limitations, it can be used to
set priorities and to determine which risks are acceptable (Covello,
1991). How such comparison can reduce the sense of too much risk
information demands further exploration.
Media Effects
As suggested in western literature, media do play a role in risk
communication. However, in this special case of China, different
types of media serve distinct roles. This finding suggests the
importance of targeting different publics using different media. The
special media system in China brings about the heavy focus on the
influence of media rather than their credibility. Only influential
media can actually serve as mediators between the government and the
publics and make a difference.
Implications
This study revealed several useful implications about risk
communication in seafood/fish. First, it serves one of the few
attempts to make sense of how Chinese people perceive such risks. It
basically supported what the literature suggested to be the
influencing factors. Instead of focusing on the seriousness of
risks, or the more objective facts, risk communicators should pay
more attention to the perceived personal connections to different
risks. In fact, the seemingly surprising finding of infrequent
interpersonal communication about risks also attest the fact that to
the majority of participants, fish safety is not the most relevant
issue in their life now.
Secondly, the importance of risk reduction efforts from multiple
sources is acknowledged. The fact that participants feel strongly
about more government involvement in reducing the sources of risks
demonstrates the importance of the "holistic" approach identified in
the literature. In other words, risk communicators should not only
help the publics reduce risks at the individual level, but also play
an active role in communicating to and advising government agencies.
In addition to the above, which basically reinforced what has been
known in the risk literature, this study also yielded unexpected
aspects. The most important one is the feeling of frustration and
fatalism resulting from the exposure to too much risk
information. Although the consequence seems to be similar to what is
found in the U. S., in that many people will not pay attention to
risk messages, the cause is vastly different. This presents a new
challenge to risk communicators and it demands more attention to how
risks should be ranked and prioritized in terms of their importance.
Limitations
This study has several limitations. First, due to time constraint,
only six interviews were conducted. More interviews are needed that
involve women from different age groups and background. Secondly,
the interviews were done through telephone. This to some extent
prevented the research from having face-to-face interaction with the
participants, which may lead to some important missing
clues. However, the study still serves as a useful attempt in the
exploration of women's perceptions of risk information in China.
References
Aldoory, L. (2001). Making health messages meaningful to women:
Factors that influence involvement. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 13, 163-185.
Anderson, P. D., & Wiener, J. B. (1995). Eating fish. In J. D.
Graham, & J. B. Wiener (Eds.), Risk versus risk: Tradeoffs in
protecting health and the environment (pp. 104-123). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Burger, J., Gochfeld, M., Powers, C. W., Waishwell, L., Warren, C., &
Goldstein, B. D. (2001). Science, policy, stakeholders, and fish
consumption advisories: Developing a fish fact sheet for the Savannah
River. Environmental Management, 27, 501-514.
Burger, J., McDermott, M. H., Chess, C., Bochenek, E., Perez-Lugo,
M., & Pflugh, K. K. (2003). Evaluating risk communication about fish
consumption advisories: Efficacy of a brochure versus a classroom
lesson in Spanish and English. Risk Analysis, 23, 791-803.
China Fishery Information Net (July, 2004). An analysis of the price
increase of seafood in 2004. Retrieved March 20, 2005, from
http://www.agri.gov.cn/jghq/scp/t20040708_219505.htm
China News Net (January, 2001). Media are the throat and tongue of
the Party and will never accept foreign investment. Retrieved March
20, 2005, from http://news.china.com/zh_cn/domestic/945/20020106/10192631.html
Chinese Fishery News (February, 2005). Prediction of popular seafood
and fish products in 2005. Retrieved March 20, 2005,
from http://www.sannong.gov.cn/scdt/gnsc/200503140772.htm.
Covello, V. T. (1991). Risk comparisons and risk communication:
Issues and problems in comparing health and environmental risks. In
R. E. Kasperson & P. J. M. Stallen (Eds.), Communicating risks to the
public: International perspectives (pp.79-124). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Covello, V. T., & Peters, R. G. (2002). Women's perceptions of the
risks of age-related diseases, including breast cancer: Reports from
a 3-year research study. Health Communication, 14, 377-395.
Covello, V. T., Sandman, P. M., & Slovic, P. (1991). Guidelines for
communicating information about chemical risks effectively and
responsibly. D. G. Mayo & R. D. Hollander (Eds.), Acceptable
evidence: Science and values in risk management (pp. 66-90). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Covello, V. T., von Winterfeldt, D., & Slovic, P. (1986). Risk
communication: A review of the literature. Risk Abstracts, 3(4), 171-182.
Cozzens, M. D., & Contractor, N. S. (1987). The effect of
conflicting information on media skepticism. Communication Research,
14, 437-451.
FFA (March, 2005). Changing patterns of health and wellness in China
highlighted by large scale population study. Retrieved March 20,
2005, from http://www.afic.org/FFA%20Issue%2023%20Newsbites_Chinese.htm.
Guo, L. (February, 2005). Upholding the principle of
Party-controlled media and strengthening the ability of directing
public opinion. Retrieved March 20, 2005 from
http://www.zhtv.com/party/show.aspx?id=85&cid=6
Jardine, C. G. (2003). Development of a public participation and
communication protocol for establishing fish consumption
advisories. Risk Analysis, 23, 461-471.
Kahlor, L. A., Dunwoody, S., Griffin, R. J., Neuwirth, K., & Giese,
J. (2003). Studying heuristic-systematic processing of risk
communication. Risk Analysis, 23, 355-368.
Kaufman, J. (2004). Can China cure its severe acute reluctance to
speak? Retrieved March 20, 2005, from
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/cbg/news/kaufman_SARS_4-24-03.htm
Kepplinger, H. M. & & Mathes, R. (1987). Artificial
horizons. (unpublished paper).
Lichtenberg, Judith., & MacLean, Douglas. (1991). The role of the
media in risk communication. In R. E. Kasperson & P. J. M. Stallen
(Eds.). Communicating risks to the publics: International
perspectives (pp. 157-173). Dordreht, The Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Lyman, F. (2003, April 4). How much mercury is in the fish you eat?
Doctors recommend consuming seafood, but some fish are tainted.
MSNBC.com. Retrieved September 21, 2004, from http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3076632/
Mazur, A. (1981). The dynamics of technical
controversy. Washington: Communications Press.
Paturel, A. (2004, August/September). Something's fishy. Fit
Pregnancy. Retrieved September 21, 2004, from
http://www.fitpregnancy.com/pregnancy/62
PBS Online Newshour (May, 2003). Coping with SARS. Retrieved March
20, 2005, from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june03/sars_5-01.html
Renn, O., & Levine, D. (1991). Credibility and trust in risk
communication. In R. E. Kasperson & P. J. M. Stallen (Eds.),
Communicating risks to the public: International perspectives
(pp.175-218). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Slovic, P. (1991). Beyond numbers: A broader perspective on risk
perception and risk communication. D. G. Mayo & R. D. Hollander
(Eds.), Acceptable evidence: Science and values in risk management
(pp. 48-65). New York: Oxford University Press.
Sparks, P., & Spepherd, R. (1994). Public perception of the potential
hazards associated with food production and food consumption: An
empirical study. Risk Analysis, 14, 799-806.
United States Food and Drug Administration, & United States
Environmental Protection Agency. (2004a, March 19). FDA and EPA
announce the revised consumer advisory on methylmercury in fish.
Retrieved September 21, 2004, from
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01038.html
Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description,
analysis, and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
|
