Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-8mjnm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T08:08:58.671Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Public health benefits and risks of fish consumption: current scientific evidence v. media coverage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 September 2012

Federico A Pasquaré*
Affiliation:
Department of Theoretical and Applied Sciences, Insubria University, Via Mazzini 5, 21100 Varese, Italy
Roberta Bettinetti
Affiliation:
Department of Theoretical and Applied Sciences, Insubria University, Via Mazzini 5, 21100 Varese, Italy
Sonia Fumagalli
Affiliation:
Department of Theoretical and Applied Sciences, Insubria University, Via Mazzini 5, 21100 Varese, Italy
Davide A Vignati
Affiliation:
CNR-IRSA, UOS Brugherio, Brugherio, Italy Université de Lorraine, LIEBE, UMR 7146, Metz, France
*
*Corresponding author: Email federico.pasquare@uninsubria.it
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate if and how the current degree of scientific uncertainty about the safety of fish consumption is incorporated at the media level.

Design

We used a dedicated software (TalTac®) to investigate the content of 169 news articles related to ‘mercury and fish consumption’ that appeared from 1990 to 2010 in the two Italian broadsheets with the highest circulation figures, in order to identify journalistic frames used in the coverage of benefits v. risks associated with fish consumption. Hypotheses were made on how the public might change fish consumption patterns as a result of media coverage.

Setting

Italy.

Results

The two newspapers have different agendas in covering the issue. La Repubblica appears to support the view that, besides health benefits, there may be risks associated with fish consumption, while Corriere della Sera emphasizes health benefits more than possible risks. Depending on the preferred information source, the public could: (i) reduce its fish intake; (ii) increase its fish intake; or (iii) become confused about the problem and sceptical towards the media, as a result of conflicting journalistic frames.

Conclusions

The Italian media, in cooperation with scientists, public health nutritionists and dietitians, should place more emphasis on the existence of a few fish species with high to very high Hg levels and relatively low contents of beneficial n-3 fatty acids (e.g. swordfish and shark). This would enable consumers to make more educated purchasing decisions to maximize the benefits of n-3 intake while reducing possible risks from consuming Hg-contaminated fish.

Type
Marketing and Communication
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2012 

There is uncertainty among consumers regarding the health effects of fish consumption(Reference Verbeke, Sioen and Pieniak1, Reference Vardeman and Aldoory2). This situation partly reflects contrasting scientific results. Substantial evidence suggests that the incorporation of fish in the diet reduces mortality from CHD(Reference Mozaffarian and Rimm3, Reference Mozaffarian4), the leading cause of death in developed and several developing nations. However, concern exists about potential health problems from increased exposure to Hg via contaminated fish(Reference Mahaffey5Reference Groth9). Although information about benefits and risks is crucial for consumers to make informed purchasing decisions, few studies have investigated how the knowledge of safety risks and health benefits affects consumers’ food choice(Reference Alhakami and Slovic10, Reference Siegrist and Cvetkovich11).

With regard to fish consumption, few studies have investigated consumers’ perception of health benefits and risks(Reference Verbeke, Sioen and Pieniak1, Reference Burger and Gochfeld12). One study(Reference Burger and Gochfeld12) examined the perceptions of people fishing in three coastal regions of the New York Bight to assess their knowledge of the risks and benefits of fish consumption. The outcomes clearly showed that the fishing public acknowledges the existence of risks and benefits connected with fish consumption, but has very poor knowledge of the specific risks and benefits. Furthermore, people are not sufficiently aware of the information necessary to make informed purchasing decisions, i.e. what are the possible contaminants, which fish are subject to the highest contamination levels and which sectors of the population are most at risk. Another recent paper(Reference Chien, Gao and Lin13) focused on determining hair Hg concentration in women of childbearing age in Taiwan and assessing risk perception in relation to fish consumption. The study found that the women involved in the research had a very poor knowledge of what kinds of fish are the safest to eat and of the potential health risks associated with contaminated fish.

Information about food health risks can have a psychological impact that depends on the trust in the information source, individual hazard perception and the specific messages conveyed by the media(Reference Verbeke, Sioen and Pieniak1, Reference Frewer, Howard and Hedderley14, Reference Burger, McDermott and Chess15). Although the public's perception of the fish consumption safety issue will not be determined exclusively by the views taken by a newspaper, it might indeed be affected by media information. So far, only one key study(Reference Vardeman and Aldoory2) has attempted to determine women's perception of conflicting media messages about fish consumption and assessed the strategies that women use to make meaning of contradictory health information. In this respect, it is worth mentioning that women were among the main target publics of a ‘consumer advisory’ issued by the US Food and Drug Administration and the US Environmental Protection Agency in 2004(16).

However, very little effort has been devoted to investigating if and how the current degree of scientific uncertainty on the benefits v. risks of fish consumption is incorporated at the media level.

General framework

Hg, a highly reactive metal, is released into the environment by anthropogenic activities such as coal-burning, chlorine production and artisanal gold mining, and is contained in batteries, thermometers and dental amalgams(Reference Mozaffarian4), although plans to eliminate Hg from these and other consumer products are already under implementation. Upon entering aquatic systems, either by atmospheric deposition or from watershed-based sources, Hg is partly converted by micro-organisms into methylmercury (MeHg)(Reference Ullrich, Tanton and Abdrashitova17). MeHg is a contaminant of concern because of its strong tendency to bioaccumulate and biomagnify along the food chain(Reference Morel, Kraepiel and Amyot18), with higher MeHg contents in large, long-lived predators (e.g. shark, swordfish, tilefish), intermediate levels in medium-sized predators (e.g. trout) and lowest levels in short-lived (e.g. salmon) or smaller (e.g. shrimp, clams) species(Reference Mozaffarian and Rimm3, Reference Mozaffarian4, Reference Groth9).

In human adults, high exposure to Hg causes paresthesias, ataxia and sensory symptoms; often reversible with reduction of exposure to Hg(Reference Mozaffarian4, Reference Gochfeld19, Reference Risher20). Nowadays few people are exposed to such doses and most of the health concern for the population is related to the potential effects of chronic, low-level Hg exposure that could derive from fish consumption(Reference Mozaffarian4). Recommendations have been issued(16) about consumption of a few fish species, with the aim of reducing exposure to Hg in pregnant women, nursing mothers and young children. Similar recommendations have not been released for the general population, since current evidence is insufficient to conclude that chronic, low-level Hg exposure has appreciable neurological effects beyond the interval of brain development correspondent to the first year of life(Reference Mozaffarian4).

Absolute consensus has not been reached with regard to Hg-related risks for the cardiovascular system either, with specific studies highlighting adverse effects on several cardiac functions(Reference Lim, Chung and Paek21) and review papers stressing that, for 1–2 servings of fatty fish per week, the benefits of regular fish consumption significantly outweigh the potential risks from Hg and other contaminants(Reference Mozaffarian4).

Very high Hg levels are actually limited to a few fish species (i.e. swordfish, shark, king mackerel and tilefish)(Reference Groth9) which, incidentally, are among those with low to moderate content of beneficial n-3 (omega-3) fatty acids(Reference Mahaffey, Clickner and Jeffries22). A study of the nutritional v. toxicological conflict related to seafood consumption(Reference Sioen, De Henauw and Van Camp23) reports that the tolerable weekly Hg intake is exceeded only for Japan, Korea, Madagascar and the Philippines. However, the same study also cautions about the assumptions made to undertake a global evaluation and underlines that: (i) the intake evaluation is strongly dependent on the applied health-based guidance values (i.e. the maximum Hg intake per kilogram of body weight per day; a value that is not uniform across the recommendations of various regulatory or international bodies); and (ii) local contaminant concentration data are necessary for a more refined picture.

Previous research on media messages about health issues

Previous research(Reference Wiegman, Gutteling and Boer24) has highlighted the effects of media messages about environmental hazards on the public's response, i.e. the readers of newspapers with frequent coverage of a hazard have a higher perception of the associated risks. Furthermore, media messages on hazards and related risks can lead the public to change its views and behaviours when the risks are relevant to its everyday life(Reference Seydlitz, Spencer and Lundskow25, Reference Spencer and Triche26).

In the last decade, there have been a few studies centred on how health-related topics are covered by the media, with regard to cancer(Reference Brown, Zavestoski and McCormick27Reference Hilton and Hunt30), human papillomavirus(Reference Anhang, Stryker and Wright31, Reference Hilton, Hunt and Langan32), tobacco control policies(Reference Menashe and Siegel33), screening for cancer(Reference Schroy, Glick and Robinson34) and prescription drugs(Reference Cassels, Hughes and Cole35, Reference Mintzes, Baver and Kravitz36). As already pointed out in the last paragraph of the introduction, very little research has focused on the public's perception of the safety of fish consumption as a result of media coverage. The only key paper published so far(Reference Vardeman and Aldoory2) investigated how women make sense of conflicting media information about the risks of eating fish. Its approach focused on determining the effects of conflicting media information, rather than analysing the media message itself. Our approach can be regarded as complementary: we use a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to analyse two major Italian newspapers with the purpose of identifying key messages and journalistic frames used in coverage of the benefits v. the risks of eating fish. We then attempt to suggest how the Italian public might respond to these messages and frames and how this, in turn, might influence purchasing decisions and fish consumption patterns.

Methods

Newspaper selection

We analysed the content of all news articles related to ‘mercury and fish consumption’ that appeared in the two broadsheets: La Repubblica and Corriere della Sera. Their online editions, Repubblica.it and Corriere.it, were also used for the analysis. They were chosen because they are the most widely circulated newspapers in Italy(37). We chose to limit our analysis to the two most-read newspapers in Italy, although we acknowledge they may not be representative of the whole Italian readership. The articles were published from 1990 to 2010, spanning a 20-year period.

Search strategy

Story headlines and main body were analysed for any of the following combinations of words: ‘tuna–mercury’, ‘swordfish–mercury’, ‘tuna–omega-3’, ‘swordfish–omega-3’, ‘fish–mercury’, ‘fish–risks’, ‘fish–benefits’, ‘fish–pollution’ and ‘fish–omega-3’. We did not include ‘mercury’ as a stand-alone word, as this would have yielded too many hits to stories where ‘mercury’ was covered without relation to the safety of fish consumption. The search yielded 169 articles that fit these criteria and represented the sample for our study.

Data analysis

The 169 news stories were analysed first qualitatively and then quantitatively to assess the presence of ‘perspectives’ or ‘frames’ in the general discourse about the health implications of fish consumption.

Qualitative data analysis

News stories are often built to take one perspective or another and to define which issues have to be regarded as important(Reference Menashe and Siegel33). These ‘perspectives’ or ‘frames’ determine what is included or excluded from stories. A frame is the result of putting an issue in perspective so that it will express a certain meaning(Reference Menashe and Siegel33, Reference Iyengar38Reference Wallack and Dorfman44).

While no established frames are available for dealing with the topic of the present paper, the occurrence of frames in the media coverage of health-related issues has been examined by several works(Reference Hilton, Hunt and Langan32, Reference Menashe and Siegel33, Reference Clarke and Everest45). To come up with frames to use for our qualitative analyses, we therefore followed the procedure described by previous authors(Reference Menashe and Siegel33) who investigated newspaper coverage of tobacco issues. The use of the approach based on the mentioned work(Reference Menashe and Siegel33) enabled us to identify, in the whole database of our news stories, two frames, that we named ‘risk frame’ and ‘benefit frame’. The next step was to evaluate the extent to which the identified frames occurred in our sample of articles.

Hence, our qualitative analysis was aimed at determining: (i) whether, in each story, the ‘risk frame’ was dominant; (ii) whether, in each story, the ‘benefit frame’ was dominant; or (iii) whether there was no predominance of either the ‘risk frame’ or the ‘benefit frame’.

Quantitative data analysis

In order to quantitatively confirm the existence of the two ‘opposing’ frames in our sample (‘risk frame’ v. ‘benefit frame’) we used TalTac®, a dedicated software suitable for scanning huge databases for content and investigating the language used by the media. The most powerful feature in the software is the possibility to determine how much more (or less) often any single word occurs in the study database, compared with a reference database of 270 000 000 words (occurrences) contained within the software. The reference database was put together by the software's developers who uploaded all the articles published during 10 years in selected Italian newspapers. The software calculates the frequency with which any given word occurs in the study database, compares it with its average frequency in the reference database, and eventually yields a numerical value (Deviation on Occurrences, DO) for each word. This value indicates how much one particular word is over- or under-represented in the study database in comparison with the reference database.

The software calculates DO as follows:

$${\rm{DO}}= \;\frac{{f{\rm{ - }}f^\ast}}{{\sqrt {f^\ast} }},\eqno\rm$$

where f stands for the frequency with which any word occurs in the study database, and f* stands for the frequency with which any word occurs in the reference database. When DO>0 for any given word in the study database, it means that this word occurs more frequently than it normally does in the journalistic discourse. When DO < 0 for any given word in the study database, it means that this word occurs less frequently than it normally does in the journalistic discourse(Reference Bolasco and Pavone46). The calculation of DO retains its statistical significance regardless of the total number of words in any study database.

We calculated the five words that had the highest DO values in our database of news stories, separating the articles in La Repubblica from the ones in Corriere della Sera. Both print and online versions of the two publications were analysed.

The second step of our quantitative assessment was based on the selection of a few relevant pairs of keywords from our database, which may help to quantitatively assess the presence of the already identified ‘benefit frame’ and ‘risk frame’. We selected the following pairs of keywords with opposite semantic meanings in terms of the benefit v. risk discourse: (i) Omega/Mercury; (ii) Benefits/Risks; (iii) Antioxidant/Carcinogenic; (iv) Healthy/Contaminated; (v) Prevention/Damage; and (vi) Cure-all/Poison. We then calculated DO values for the selected pair of keywords for both broadsheets, together with their online versions.

Results

The time evolution of the print media coverage of this issue showed that, after an initial decade (1990–1999) characterized by extremely sparse stories, there has been an overall increase in the coverage from 2000 to 2010, with a peak of twenty-three articles in 2003 (Fig. 1). This reflects the growth of media and public awareness of environment- and health-related issues in Italy over the last decade.

Fig. 1 Temporal trend of the number of news stories on fish consumption published from 1990 to 2010 by the Italian newspapers La Repubblica and Corriere della Sera

Our qualitative and software-based, quantitative analyses enabled us to identify and evaluate the occurrence of two frames, hereby named ‘benefit frame’ and ‘risk frame’, that characterize the overall discourse on the health implications of fish consumption. As a result of the qualitative analysis on the 169 stories, it has been possible to clearly identify the dominance of either the ‘risk frame’ or the ‘benefit frame’ in 121 of them. As shown in Fig. 2, there was an overall balance in the numbers of stories where implication of risks (sixty-two stories) and benefits (fifty-nine stories) are discussed as the main topic of the article. In the remaining forty-eight stories, a more balanced discourse on benefits and risks, more respondent to scientific evidence, emerged. The two broadsheets differed in terms of how much they represented the ‘benefit frame’ v. the ‘risk frame’ (Fig. 2). Considering all fifty news stories from La Repubblica, eighteen articles were ‘balanced’. Out of the remaining thirty-two articles, 64 % were mainly centred on risks, whereas 36 % were mainly centred on benefits. In the newspaper's online version, risks and benefits were equally covered.

Fig. 2 Results of the qualitative analysis on the 169 news stories on fish consumption retrieved from the Italian newspapers Corriere della Sera and La Repubblica, and their respective online versions, for the period 1990–2010 ( $$$$ , benefits; $$$$ , risks; $$$$ , balance)

Considering the total of seventy-eight stories from Corriere della Sera, twenty articles were ‘balanced’. Out of the remaining fifty-eight articles, 54 % highlighted the ‘benefit frame’, whereas 46 % showed a dominance of the ‘risk frame’. With regard to the thirty online stories from Corriere.it, seven were ‘balanced’. Out of the remaining twenty-three articles, 56 % focused mainly on the benefit discourse, while 44 % highlighted the risks more than the benefits.

The subsequent quantitative analysis enabled us to gain further insight into possible differences in the approach used by the two broadsheets to represent the issue. Our determination of the words with the highest DO value in the La Repubblica database resulted in the following five words (Fig. 3a), in decreasing order of frequency: (i) Mercury; (ii) Omega; (iii) Augusta; (iv) Tuna; (v) Fish. The word ‘Augusta’ refers to the chronic environmental pollution that affects the Bay of Augusta, in Southern Italy(Reference Cundy, Collins and Turner47), a topic which was often covered by this newspaper. Our calculation for the Corriere della Sera database resulted (Fig. 3b) in the following words, in decreasing order of frequency: (i) Omega; (ii) Fish; (iii) Mercury; (iv) Fatty; (v) Tuna.

Fig. 3 The five words with the higher DO (Deviation on Occurrences) values in (a) the La Repubblica database and (b) the Corriere della Sera database

It is worth noting that among the three most meaningful words (DO>1, over-representation) in the stories from both newspapers were featured ‘Omega’ and ‘Mercury’, which can be clearly related to the correspondent benefit and risk frames. However, there is a difference in how frequently these words (and the correspondent frames) were used in the two newspapers. ‘Mercury’ is the most ‘over-represented’ word in the La Repubblica database (Fig. 3a), while the word ‘Omega’ has the highest DO in the Corriere della Sera database, where ‘Mercury’ holds the third position in the ranking (Fig. 3b). The results of our calculations of DO on pairs of opposite keywords reveal even more clearly that the two broadsheets have different approaches in covering this topic. DO values for La Repubblica clearly suggest a predominance (with no exception) in the frequency of words that can be related to the risk frame (Fig. 4a and b), whereas DO values for Corriere della Sera clearly indicate (with the exception of the Healthy/Contaminated pair) that this broadsheet tends to emphasize the benefits more than the risks associated with fish consumption (Fig. 5a and b).

Fig. 4 La Repubblica database: (a) results of DO (Deviation on Occurrences) calculations on selected pairs of keywords; (b) results for the Omega/Mercury pair of keywords, shown separately to graphically compensate for the much higher DO values

Fig. 5 Corriere della Sera database: (a) results of DO (Deviation on Occurrences) calculations on selected pairs of keywords; (b) results for the Omega/Mercury pair of keywords, shown separately to graphically compensate for the much higher DO values

Therefore, from our qualitative and quantitative assessment, it appears that the two studied newspapers have different agendas when addressing the health and fish consumption topic. La Repubblica has been supporting the view that, besides health benefits, there may be risks associated with fish consumption, while Corriere della Sera has been emphasizing health benefits more than possible risks.

Discussion

To evaluate the potential effects of the above identified frames on the Italian public's perception of this issue, we need to envision three possible scenarios that consider different audiences and a combination of them: (i) an audience that mainly/exclusively reads La Repubblica; (ii) an audience that mainly/exclusively reads Corriere della Sera; and (iii) an audience that reads both newspapers (as these broadsheets have the highest circulation in Italy, this possibility – and hence this scenario – cannot be ruled out).

  1. 1. Previous studies assessed that negative media messages about food can have a considerable impact on purchasing choices(Reference Carson and Hassel48Reference de Jonge, Frewer and van Trijip50). Moreover, it has been suggested that negative press has an impact five to seven times stronger on purchasing behaviours than favourable press(Reference Mizerski51, Reference Verbeke and Ward52). Hence, a possible impact of the La Repubblica coverage on fish consumption patterns of its readers could be a reduction in fish intake; which, in turn, would lead to a decrease in the health benefits related to fish consumption. On the other hand, we need to consider the results of a study(Reference Chien, Gao and Lin13) reporting that about 68 % of Taiwanese women of childbearing age would not change their fish consumption habits even when informed that some fish contained high levels of Hg that may be harmful for unborn babies. However, the perception of the safety of fish consumption of the Italian public may be different from that of Asian consumers, mainly due to different cultural approaches to food. Further research is needed to shed light on this particular issue.

  2. 2. One of the possible influences of the Corriere della Sera coverage on its readership would be an increase in fish intake, in view of the potential health benefits. However, not perceiving the potential risks associated with some fish with high Hg levels could lead women who are or may become pregnant and nursing mothers to reduce their efforts to minimize Hg intake via the consumption of contaminated fish.

  3. 3. The citizens who read both newspapers will be faced with ‘conflicting information’, which can bring about emotional, negative consequences. Studies have shown(Reference Wu and Hoyoung53Reference Hembroff and Sierra55) that individuals can receive contradictory health information from a range of different sources. Conflicting health information can generate confusion about the correct behaviours needed to stay in good health. In addition to the above, previous research(Reference Vardeman and Aldoory2), aimed at finding out how women made sense of conflicting media coverage of health implications of fish consumption, revealed that most women not only manifested confusion about the problem, but became sceptical towards health information presented in the media.

Conclusions and recommendations

Our qualitative and quantitative analysis clearly showed that the two most influential Italian newspapers (and their online versions) used different journalistic frames in their coverage of the possible presence of Hg in fish. While the present study has not directly assessed public perception and response to media coverage, previous research has demonstrated unequivocally that media information can have an impact on consumers’ perception with respect to fish consumption(Reference Vardeman and Aldoory2). As a result, consumers may face difficulties in balancing possible risks with recognized health benefits and adopting, when necessary, the appropriate behavioural changes. Hence, further research is needed about the impact of unbalanced or conflicting media messages on consumer decision making.

Moreover, the lack of specific information about risks and benefits of eating certain fish types in Italy highlights the need for a risk communication campaign that provides detailed information aimed at enabling citizens to make informed decisions. This type of communication effort has been conducted in the last decade especially in the USA and Canada(Reference Burger and Gochfeld12, Reference Jardine56, Reference Knuth, Connelly and Sheehka57).

Media alone cannot be expected to take full responsibility for such efforts and other stakeholders should engage in these communication campaigns. A recent work(Reference Clonan, Holdsworth and Swift58) highlighted the role that public health nutritionists and dietitians can play in communicating how nutritional needs can be met, while at the same time enabling the protection of fish stocks. Another paper(Reference Sulda, Coveney and Bentley59) investigated how the public health nutrition workforce, in Australia, can develop policies to respond to factors that contribute to climate change. We believe that public health nutritionists and dietitians should directly commit themselves to raising consumers’ awareness of the benefits and risks of fish consumption. Indeed, a tight cooperation between scientists, the public health nutrition workforce and the media would result in the elaboration of more balanced and scientifically reliable messages to the public. Such information should place more emphasis on the existence of a few fish species (i.e. swordfish, shark, king mackerel, tilefish, certain types of tuna, walleye and porgy) that have high to very high Hg levels(Reference Groth9) and, for swordfish, shark, king mackerel and tilefish, relatively low contents of beneficial n-3 fatty acids(Reference Mahaffey, Clickner and Jeffries22). This effort could help consumers to make more informed choices aimed at maximizing the benefits of n-3 intake from fish v. the possible risks of consuming Hg-contaminated fish.

Finally, Hg is only one of the contaminants that can accumulate in fish from various polluting sources(Reference Dórea60) and severe local pollution can reduce (and at worst eliminate) the benefits normally obtained from consuming normally safe-to-eat fish species. The creation of new journalistic messages providing consumers with all the global and local relevant information to make the safest choices in relation to fish consumption appears a necessary step to increase the societal role of the (Italian) media in making scientific information readily accessible to the public.

Acknowledgements

Sources of funding: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sector. Conflicts of interest: The authors of this manuscript declare no conflict of interests. Authors’ contributions: F.A.P. carried out the software-based analysis and wrote the manuscript; R.B. contributed to the software-based analysis and participated in writing the manuscript; S.F. carried out the qualitative analysis of the news stories and participated in writing the manuscript; D.A.V. coordinated the research and participated in writing the manuscript. Part of this research was conducted within S.F.'s final dissertation in the Program of Environmental Sciences at Insubria University. The authors are thankful to two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments, suggestions and corrections to the original manuscript, which greatly improved the quality of the paper.

References

1.Verbeke, W, Sioen, I, Pieniak, Zet al. (2005) Consumer perception versus scientific evidence about health benefits and safety risks from fish consumption. Public Health Nutr 8, 422429.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Vardeman, JE & Aldoory, L (2008) A qualitative study of how women make meaning of contradictory media messages about the risks of eating fish. Health Commun 23, 282291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Mozaffarian, D & Rimm, EB (2006) Fish intake, contaminants, and human health: evaluating the risks and the benefits. JAMA 296, 18851899.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Mozaffarian, D (2009) Fish, mercury, selenium and cardiovascular risk: current evidence and unanswered questions. Int J Environ Res Public Health 6, 18941916.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Mahaffey, KR (1999) Methylmercury: a new look at the risks. Public Health Rep 114, 396399, 402–413.Google Scholar
6.Rice, DC, Schoeny, R & Mahaffey, K (2003) Methods and rationale for derivation of a reference dose for methylmercury by the US EPA. Risk Anal 23, 107115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Rice, DC (2004) The US EPA reference dose for methylmercury: sources of uncertainty. Environ Res 95, 406413.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Chan, HM & Egeland, GM (2004) Fish consumption, mercury exposure, and heart diseases. Nutr Rev 62, 6872.Google ScholarPubMed
9.Groth, E III (2010) Ranking the contributions of commercial fish and shellfish varieties to mercury exposure in the United States: implications for risk communication. Environ Res 110, 226236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Alhakami, A & Slovic, P (1994) A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Anal 14, 10851096.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Siegrist, M & Cvetkovich, G (2001) Better negative than positive? Evidence of a bias for negative information about possible health dangers. Risk Anal 21, 199206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Burger, J & Gochfeld, M (2009) Perceptions of the risks and benefits of fish consumption: individual choices to reduce risk and increase health benefits. Environ Res 109, 343349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Chien, L-C, Gao, C-S & Lin, H-H (2010) Hair mercury concentration and fish consumption: risk and perceptions of risk among women of childbearing age. Environ Res 110, 123129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Frewer, LJ, Howard, C, Hedderley, Det al. (1997) The elaboration likelihood model and communication about food risks. Risk Anal 17, 759770.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Burger, J, McDermott, MH, Chess, Cet al. (2003) Evaluating risk communication about fish consumption advisories: efficacy of a brochure versus a classroom lesson in Spanish and English. Risk Anal 23, 791803.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Food and Drug Administration & Environmental Protection Agency (2004) FDA and EPA announce the revised consumer advisory on methylmercury in fish. http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/ProductSpecificInformation/Seafood/FoodbornePathogensContaminants/Methylmercury/default.htm(accessedOctober2011).Google Scholar
17.Ullrich, SM, Tanton, TW & Abdrashitova, SA (2001) Mercury in the aquatic environment: a review of factors affecting methylation. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 31, 241293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Morel, FMM, Kraepiel, AML & Amyot, M (1998) The chemical cycle and bioaccumulation of mercury. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 29, 543566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Gochfeld, M (2003) Cases of mercury exposure, bioavailability, and absorption. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 56, 174179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Risher, JF (2004) Too much of a good thing (fish): methylmercury case study. J Environ Health 67, 914., 28.Google ScholarPubMed
21.Lim, S, Chung, H.-U & Paek, D (2010) Low dose mercury and hearth rate variability among community residents nearby to an industrial complex in Korea. Neurotoxicology 31, 1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Mahaffey, KR, Clickner, RP & Jeffries, RA (2008) Methylmercury and omega-3 fatty acids: co-occurrence of dietary sources with emphasis on fish and shellfish. Environ Res 107, 2029.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Sioen, I, De Henauw, S, Van Camp, Jet al. (2009) Comparison of the nutritional–toxicological conflict related to seafood consumption in different regions worldwide. Regul Toxicol Pharm 55, 219228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Wiegman, O, Gutteling, JM, Boer, Het al. (1989) Newspaper coverage of hazards and the reactions of readers. Journalism Q 66, 844863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Seydlitz, R, Spencer, JW & Lundskow, G (1994) Media presentations of a hazard event and the public's response: an empirical examination. Int J Mass Emer Dis 12, 279301.Google Scholar
26.Spencer, JW & Triche, E (1994) Media constructions of risk and safety: differential framings of hazard events. Sociol Inq 64, 199213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.Brown, P, Zavestoski, SM, McCormick, Set al. (2001) Print media coverage of environmental causation of breast cancer. Sociol Health Ill 23, 747775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28.Benelli, E (2003) The role of the media in steering public opinion on healthcare issues. Health Policy 63, 179186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29.Lewison, G, Tootell, S, Roe, Pet al. (2008) How do the media report cancer research? A study of the UK's BBC website. Br J Cancer 99, 569576.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Hilton, S & Hunt, K (2010) Coverage of Jade Goody's cervical cancer in UK newspapers: a missed opportunity for health promotion? BMC Public Health 10, 368374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31.Anhang, R, Stryker, JE, Wright, TCet al. (2003) News media coverage of human papillomavirus. Cancer 100, 308314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32.Hilton, S, Hunt, K, Langan, Met al. (2010) Newsprint media representations of the introduction of the HPV vaccination programme for cervical cancer prevention in the UK (2005–2008). Soc Sci Med 70, 942950.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33.Menashe, CL & Siegel, M (1998) The power of a frame: an analysis of newspaper coverage of tobacco issues – United States, 1985–1996. J Health Commun 3, 307325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34.Schroy, PC, Glick, JT, Robinson, PAet al. (2008) Has the surge in media attention increased public awareness about colorectal cancer and screening? J Commun Health 33, 19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35.Cassels, A, Hughes, MA, Cole, Cet al. (2003) Drugs in the news: an analysis of Canadian newspaper coverage on new prescription drugs. CMAJ 168, 11331137.Google ScholarPubMed
36.Mintzes, B, Baver, ML, Kravitz, RLet al. (2003) How does direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) affect prescribing? A survey in primary care environments with and without legal DTCA. CMAJ 169, 405412.Google ScholarPubMed
37.Accertamenti Diffusione Stampa (2011) Tiratura media quotidiani italiani (Average circulation figures of Italian Newspapers provided by the Italian Agency for the Assessment of Newspaper Circulation). http://www.adsnotizie.it/certif/index.php(accessedMay2012).Google Scholar
38.Iyengar, S (1991) Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39.Ryan, C (1991) Prime Time Activism: Media Strategies for Grassroots Organizing. Boston, MA: South End Press.Google Scholar
40.Entman, R (1993) Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. J Commun 43, 5158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41.Wallack, L, Dorfman, L, Jernigan, Det al. (1993) Media Advocacy and Public Health: Power for Prevention. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
42.Chapman, S & Lupton, D (1994) The Fight for Public Health: Principles and Practice of Media Advocacy. London: BMJ Publishing Group.Google Scholar
43.Schon, DA & Rein, M (1994) Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
44.Wallack, L & Dorfman, L (1996) Media advocacy: a strategy for advancing policy and promoting health. Health Educ Q 23, 293317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45.Clarke, JN & Everest, MM (2006) Cancer in the mass print media: fear, uncertainty and the medical model. Soc Sci Med 62, 25912600.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46.Bolasco, S & Pavone, P (2010) Automatic dictionary- and rule-based systems for extracting information from text. Stud Class Dat Anal 5, 189198.Google Scholar
47.Cundy, AB, Collins, PEF, Turner, SDet al. (1998) 100 years of environmental change in a coastal wetland, Augusta Bay, southeast Sicily: evidence from geochemical and palaeoecological studies. Geol Soc London Spec Publ 139, 243254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48.Carson, C & Hassel, C (1994) Educating high risk Minnesotans about dietary fats, blood cholesterol and heart diseases. J Am Diet Assoc 94, 659660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49.Robenstein, R & Thurman, W (1996) Health risk and the demand for red meat: evidence from futures markets. Rev Agric Econ 18, 629641.Google Scholar
50.de Jonge, J, Frewer, L, van Trijip, Het al. (2004) Monitoring consumer confidence in food safety: an exploratory study. Br Food J 106, 837849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
51.Mizerski, RW (1982) An attribution explanation of the disproportionate influence of unfavorable information. J Consum Res 9, 301310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
52.Verbeke, W & Ward, RW (2001) A fresh meat almost ideal demand system incorporating negative TV press and advertising impact. Agric Econ 25, 359374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
53.Wu, L & Hoyoung, A (2010) Making sense of conflicting health information: an exploratory study. P Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 47, 19.Google Scholar
54.Eriksson-Backa, K (2008) Access to health information: perceptions of barriers among elderly in a language minority. Inform Res 13, issue 4, paper 368.Google Scholar
55.Hembroff, L & Sierra, A (1997) Sources and Perceived Reliability of Health Information. State of the State Survey, Briefing Paper no. 1998-35. East Lancing, MI: Institute for Public Policy & Social Research, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
56.Jardine, CG (2003) Development of a public participation and communication protocol for establishing fish consumption advisories. Risk Anal 23, 461471.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
57.Knuth, B, Connelly, NA, Sheehka, Jet al. (2003) Weighing health benefits and health risk information when consuming sport-caught fish. Risk Anal 23, 11851197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
58.Clonan, A, Holdsworth, M, Swift, JAet al. (2011) The dilemma of healthy eating and environmental sustainability: the case of fish. Public Health Nutr 15, 277284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
59.Sulda, H, Coveney, J & Bentley, M (2009) An investigation of the ways in which public health nutrition policy and practices can address climate change. Public Health Nutr 13, 304313.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
60.Dórea, JG (2008) Persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substances in fish: human health considerations. Sci Total Environ 400, 93114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Fig. 1 Temporal trend of the number of news stories on fish consumption published from 1990 to 2010 by the Italian newspapers La Repubblica and Corriere della Sera

Figure 1

Fig. 2 Results of the qualitative analysis on the 169 news stories on fish consumption retrieved from the Italian newspapers Corriere della Sera and La Repubblica, and their respective online versions, for the period 1990–2010 ($$$$, benefits; $$$$, risks; $$$$, balance)

Figure 2

Fig. 3 The five words with the higher DO (Deviation on Occurrences) values in (a) the La Repubblica database and (b) the Corriere della Sera database

Figure 3

Fig. 4 La Repubblica database: (a) results of DO (Deviation on Occurrences) calculations on selected pairs of keywords; (b) results for the Omega/Mercury pair of keywords, shown separately to graphically compensate for the much higher DO values

Figure 4

Fig. 5 Corriere della Sera database: (a) results of DO (Deviation on Occurrences) calculations on selected pairs of keywords; (b) results for the Omega/Mercury pair of keywords, shown separately to graphically compensate for the much higher DO values