Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
www.agr.gc.ca
Common menu bar links
Seafood and Health
Communicating Balanced Information
to Support Informed Choice
–information for educators and communicators
In this section
Access to information about nutrition issues is key to being informed and being in a position to make relevant choices.
When it comes to seafood, consumers need balanced information that will allow them to make choices that optimize the nutritional benefits and minimize the safety risks.
Yet much of the information consumers are hearing about the health benefits and risks of eating seafood is fragmented.
This section summarizes key messages and helps the educator or communicator know how to make sense of new information-making you better equipped to communicate a balanced message about seafood and health.
Balancing Benefits and Risks in Seafood Consumption
The bottom line messages for balancing seafood benefits and risks are:
Canada's
Food Guide recommends that people eat at least two Food Guide
Servings (150 grams) of fish each week. - Fish is a nutritious, healthy food choice. It contains a healthy type of fat and many other important nutrients. It plays a role in the maintenance of heart health and in normal growth and development. Fish contains DHA, an omega-3 fatty acid that supports the normal development of the brain, eyes and nerves.
- Any potential health risk posed by contaminants such as mercury in fish is minimized by eating a variety of species and by following the consumption advice issued by Health Canada (and by regional authorities, in the case of sport fish) and is far outweighed by the health benefits.
- Risks associated with foodborne illness can be managed by proper seafood selection, handling, storage and preparation.
An expert committee convened by the independent Institute of Medicine of the U.S.-based National Academy of Sciences recently interpreted the evidence for benefits and risks associated with seafood consumption and considered the balance between them. The report, released in October 2006 (e.g. pages 8, 15, 207-208):
- encourages adults, including pregnant women and women who may become pregnant, as well as young children, to consume seafood as part of a healthy diet and follow official guidelines (advisories) for consumption;
- indicates that most people can gain nutritional benefits from seafood while minimizing their risk of exposure to contaminants by selecting fish and shellfish in amounts that fall within current dietary guidelines; and
- concluded that consumers who eat at least two servings weekly from a variety of fish gain significant health benefits without risk from trace levels of mercury and other contaminants in seafood.
To learn more:
On this website
- How Much Seafood Should You Eat-and Which Kinds?
- What Are the Health Benefits of Eating Seafood?
- What About Seafood Safety?
Other resources
- Nesheim MC, Yaktine AL (eds.): Seafood Choices: Balancing Benefits and
Risks. Committee on Nutrient Relationships in Seafood Selections to
Balance Benefits and Risks, Institute of Medicine, Food and Nutrition
Board. Washington DC: National Academies Press, 2007.
www.nap.edu/catalog/11762.html
Sources of Nutrition Information
Today,
consumers have a wide range of potential sources of food and nutrition
information. The Canadian Council of Food and Nutrition(1) indicates
that Canadians' top sources of nutrition information are food product
labels (77%), print media (76%), friends, relatives and colleagues (66%)
and electronic media (65%). A number of other sources are used by a
significant proportion of Canadians: 46% use the Internet and 41% use
government materials. Few people receive information directly from a
dietitian (23%) and just over half receive information from a family
physician or other health professional (51%).
Yet the primary sources of information about nutrition-except product labels-are not widely viewed as credible. Health professionals, although accessed as a source of information less often, are given high credibility ratings.
Reference:
1. Canadian Council of Food and Nutrition: Tracking Nutrition Trends VI,
CCFN, August 2006
www.ccfn.ca/pdfs/TNT_VI_Report__2006.pdf
Communication Challenges
One of the challenges in supporting informed consumer choice is how health benefits and risk are communicated to both the general public and to target populations. The fragmented information that consumers receive about the nutritional value and health risks associated with seafood can result in confusion or misperceptions about this food source. Weekly headlines highlight research findings and messages from health organizations touting the health benefits of seafood, yet others focus on the risks of chemical contaminants, foodborne pathogens or imported seafood, creating fear and doubt. Somewhere in the mix consumers hear the government advice designed to mitigate risks from contaminants.
The
Institute of Medicine review of seafood benefits and risks(1) concluded
that:
"Advice to consumers from the federal government and private organizations on seafood choices to promote human health has been fragmented. Benefits have been addressed separately from risks; portion sizes differ from one piece of advice to another. Some benefits and some risks have been addressed separately from others for different physiological systems and age groups. As a result, multiple pieces of guidance-sometimes conflicting-simultaneously exist for seafood."
Studies on communication effectiveness and information processing have shown that adverse messages or negative press related to food health issues can heavily influence consumers' food consumption decisions. In this respect, it has been indicated that unfavourable news weighs five to seven times more heavily in consumer decisions than favourable news.(2) Both the overall health benefit aspects of fish consumption, and precautionary advice on chemical contaminants in specific seafood products, need to be balanced in a fair manner to facilitate consumers' understanding in a context that they can use to guide their eating choices.
The
United States has a similar consumption advisory in effect to that of
Canada.(3) Research in the U.S. suggests there is a potential for people
to misinterpret the government's advice on eating seafood. Concern about
mercury levels in fish and other seafood may be affecting seafood consumption
patterns. Several studies (4,5,6) suggest that risk-avoidance advice
for at-risk groups can lead to an overall reduction in consumption of
seafood in general, and has been unnecessarily followed by other individuals
or by the general public:
- An expert panel convened by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis investigated the aggregate health impacts of hypothetical shifts in fish consumption, based on the effect on both nutrient intake and contaminant exposure. The panel found that whereas effective adherence to the recommendations can result in positive health benefits, unintended reductions in consumption among women of childbearing age may result in much smaller benefits for children. Furthermore, for a consumption scenario in which all segments of the adult population mistakenly reduced fish consumption by 17%, their analysis suggested that the overall net public health effect would be negative.(4,5)
- An opinion survey conducted in the U.S. suggests public confusion about mercury levels in fish and a growing knowledge gap about which species of fish are low or high in mercury.(6) While 60% recalled hearing information about the health benefits of eating fish, four out of ten Americans (43%) said they remember hearing negative news, especially about the presence of mercury and other contaminants (35%). Almost a third of the public reported being concerned about mercury in fish, and many said they have changed the types or amounts of seafood they eat. Nearly one third (30%) believed the advisory information applied to all Americans. U.S. consumers also mistakenly believed that many commonly consumed types of fish and shellfish were high in mercury. About a third (32%) of those interviewed incorrectly said that specific low mercury species contained higher levels of mercury.
References:
- Nesheim MC, Yaktine AL (eds.): Seafood Choices: Balancing Benefits and
Risks. Committee on Nutrient Relationships in Seafood Selections to
Balance Benefits and Risks, Institute of Medicine, Food and Nutrition
Board. Washington DC: National Academies Press, 2007, p.11, 239
www.nap.edu/catalog/11762.html - Verbeke W, Sioen I, Pieniak Z et al: Consumer perception versus scientific
evidence about health benefits and safety risks from fish consumption.
Public Health Nutrition 2005;8(4): 422-429. Abstract and ordering
information:
www.journals.cambridge.org/download.php?... - U.S. DHHS and EPA (2004): "What You Need to Know About Mercury
in Fish and Shellfish: 2004 EPA and FDA Advice For: Women Who Might
Become Pregnant, Women Who are Pregnant, Nursing Mothers, Young Children."
www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/admehg3.html - Cohen JT, Bellinger DC, Connor WE et al: A quantitative risk-benefit
analysis of changes in population fish consumption. Am J Prev Med
2005c;29(4):325-334.
http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0749-3797/PIIS0749379705002539.pdf [free online] - Cohen JT: Matters of the heart and mind: risk-risk tradeoffs in eating
fish containing methylmercury. Risk in Perspective (a newsletter of
the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis) 2006;14(1):1-6.
www.hcra.harvard.edu./rip/risk_in_persp_January2006.pdf - Storey ML, Forshee RA (2005): "Go Fish: An Analysis of Consumers'
Understanding of the Health Risks of Consuming and Not Consuming Fish
and Shellfish." Hein GL (ed). Center for Food, Nutrition and
Agriculture Policy, University of Maryland.
- Order form: http://agresearch.umd.edu/CFNAP/files/Go_Fish_Order_Form.pdf
- Executive summary: "Attitudes and Beliefs About Eating Fish: A National Opinion Survey Conducted for The Center for Food, Nutrition and Agriculture Policy (University of Maryland): An Executive Summary"
http://agresearch.umd.edu/CFNAP/realmercuryfacts/survey_findings/index.htm
Communicating
the Emerging Science of Dietary Components for Health
–Some Guidelines
Guidelines developed jointly by the U.S.-based International Food Information Council (IFIC) and Institute of Food Technologists outline seven key principles that can assist nutrition communicators in translating research findings into understandable and actionable messages for consumers. The quick reference guide-which summarizes the full guidelines-outlines a checklist of questions to review.
*PDF Format, requires Adobe Acrobat Reader
Communication Checklist (*PDF)
Do your communications...
- Enhance public understanding of foods,
food components, and/or dietary supplements and their role in a
healthful lifestyle?
Serve-up plain talk about food and health.
Advise consumers that dietary components are not "magic bullets" that work alone, but may promote good health when included as part of a healthful diet and lifestyle. - Clearly convey the differences between
emerging and consensus science?
Scientific research is evolutionary, not revolutionary.
Tell consumers where new findings fall on the research continuum and within the overall body of evidence. - Communicate with accuracy and balance?
Carefully craft your communications.
Advise a healthy skepticism for potentially misleading headlines, such as "medical miracle" or "scientific breakthrough." Suggest looking beyond dramatic language to get the full story. Explain that facts are facts, but experts may differ in opinion about how to interpret them. Present a complete picture of a study's results, rather than select findings. - Put new findings into the context needed
for an individual to make dietary decisions?
Make your messages meaningful.
Translate the latest research into what is on the consumer's dinner plate. Spell out to whom new findings apply and what impact, if any, the findings may have on eating habits. - Disclose all key details about a particular
study?
Cite the study specifics.
Discuss the research study design (such as characteristics of participants and quantity of food consumed) to help the public understand the results and their validity. - Consider peer-review status?
Point out the peer-review process as a key measure of a study's credibility, although it is not the only key. Whether a study has been through the peer-review process is not a guarantee of conclusive results-it is one piece of a larger puzzle made up by the overall body of evidence. - Assess the objectivity of research?
When assessing a study's objectivity, consider the full facts-including not only disclosure of funding sources, but also the peer-review process, methodology, and conclusions.
Adapted from Guidelines for Communicating the Emerging Science of Dietary Components for Health - Quick Reference Checklist for Communicators, IFIC and IFT, 2005
To learn more:
- International Food Information Council (IFIC) Foundation and Institute
of Food Technologists (IFT): Guidelines for Communicating the Emerging
Science of Dietary Components for Health, 2005
- Guidelines for Journalists, Health Professionals, and other Communicators
www.ific.org/nutrition/functional/guidelines/guidelinesfulldoc.cfm
- Quick Reference Checklist for Communicators
www.ific.org/nutrition/functional/guidelines/quickreference.cfm - International Food Information Council: Beyond the headlines: what consumers
need to know about nutrition news", Food Insight November/December
2001
www.ific.org/foodinsight/2001/nd/nutrnewsfi601.cfm
