Media constructions of responsibility for the production and mitigation of environmental harms: the case of mercury-contaminated fish.

• Author: Fitzgerald, Amy
• Position: Canada

Introduction

There is no doubt that continued environmental degradation poses increasing risks for human well-being. One such risk, which has been receiving increased attention of late, is the mercury-contamination of fish: excessive levels of mercury are being released into the environment and are finding their way into human bodies through the consumption of fish. As a result, governments have issued and revised guidelines for fish consumption, and the media have been reporting on the risk. As with criminal justice issues, the public is receiving most of their information about the mercury-contaminated fish problem from the media (Oken, Kleinman, Berland, Simon, Rich-Edwards, and Gillman 2003; Storey, Forshee, Anderson, and Miller 2006; Vardeman and Aldoory 2008). To date, however, there have been no published examinations of media messages related to mercury and fish.

We sought to fill this gap by examining more than five years of media representations of this issue in two newspapers published in two countries: New York Times in the United States and the Globe and Mail in Canada. We examined media accounts in both countries to facilitate comparisons: Citizens in both countries are confronted by the issue of mercury-contaminated fish, but the larger socio-political context is different, and thus we felt that such a comparative examination could provide insight into the construction of this risk, particularly into how responsibility is attributed.

The paper begins by providing an overview of how some species of fish have become contaminated with mercury, what some of the resulting problems are, and what the governmental responses have been. We then provide an overview of the literature examining media depictions of the environment, as well as of the emerging area of green criminology, explaining how this study is situated in these literatures. The data and methods used in the study are then examined, followed by a discussion of the findings and their relevance in relation to the literature.

Mercury and fish

Mercury is found naturally in the environment. However, anthropogenic factors (such as coal-burning power plants) have created high concentrations of mercury in some locations. Inorganic mercury becomes dangerous when it interacts with water and the bacteria therein, which converts into methylmercury. Methylmercury is ingested by small organisms and fish, which are then consumed by larger predatory fish (e.g., swordfish, tuna, escolar, marlin, orange roughy), and there is a resulting bioaccumulation of methylmercury in some species of fish consumed by humans. Methylmercury cannot be removed by trimming or cooking (Park and Johnson 2006), it is easily absorbed by the human body, and the human body has no efficient way of excreting it (Grobe, Manore, and Still 2007; Storey et al. 2006). Currently, the primary source of mercury in humans is methylmercury-contaminated fish (Park and Johnson 2006; Burger, Stern, and Gochfeld 2005; Vardeman and Aldoory 2008).

Some of the health problems associated with methylmercury toxicity include mental damage, cerebral palsy, sensory impairments, and motor impairment (Park and Johnson 2006; Health Canada 2009), and there is currently debate over whether it may also contribute to cardiovascular damage (Mozaffarian and Rimm 2006). Methylmercury ingested by a woman can be passed on to her foetus, and the effects on foetuses are particularly damaging because the nervous system is still developing (Grobe et al. 2007; Health Canada 2008; Burger et al. 2005; Vardeman and Aldoory 2008). The risks have been deemed considerable enough to warrant the development of government issued fish-consumption guidelines.

Government guidelines for fish consumption

In light of the risk posed by methylmercury in fish, several countries recently issued warnings about fish consumption, including the United States (2001), Canada (2002), the United Kingdom (2003), Australia (2004), New Zealand (2004), and Ireland (2004) (Roosen, Marette, Blanchemanche, and Verger 2006). These warnings have been disseminated using the Internet, mass media, and informational documents distributed by gynaecologists and obstetricians. Most of the advisories indicate that the species with the highest mercury levels, such as shark and swordfish, should be avoided. There are, however, variations in the consumption guidelines for other species. Additionally, all of the advisories draw attention to the health benefits of fish consumption (Roosen et al. 2006).

The fish consumption guidelines issued by Health Canada were revised in 2007. The most recent guidelines set limits for the consumption of fish with higher levels of mercury, including tuna, shark, swordfish, marlin, orange roughy, and escolar. They recommend that the general population limit their consumption of these fish to 150 grams per week, women who are or may become pregnant or who are breastfeeding to 150 grams per month, children age 5-11 years of age to 125 grams per month, and children 1-4 years old to 75 grams per month (Health Canada 2009).

In the literature examining the effects of government guidelines on fish consumption, the media have been highlighted as a critical source of information for consumers (see especially Oken et al. 2003; Vardeman and Aldoory 2008). In a study of consumer perceptions of seafood, Hicks, Pivarnik, and McDermott (2008) asked specifically about how their respondents gathered information about seafood and found that their respondents relied most heavily on the media for their information (63% reported relying on the media). They also report that the amount of attention paid to seafood issues in newspapers has been increasing dramatically, and they speculate that this increase in attention may have contributed to a more negative attitude to seafood among consumers. Further, they report that consumer knowledge about seafood is quite limited; most specifically, many people do not entirely comprehend government seafood-consumption guidelines.

Some have explicitly critiqued the messages disseminated by the media regarding mercury and fish. In 1973, a researcher lamented in the Marine Pollution Bulletin that the media, "in their efforts to startle the population into awareness of pollution problems, usually select the high results" of mercury testing in fish (Olley 1973: 143). More recently, Storey et al. (2006) have blamed environmental groups for the declining reputation of fish, arguing that these groups have been promulgating overly negative messages in the media about the link between mercury in fish and risks to foetuses and children. They claim that these messages are confusing the public and obscuring the fact that there are positive benefits of eating fish. (It should be noted that their research was supported by the U.S. Tuna Foundation).

Despite references to "negative" and "contradictory" messages regarding fish and methylmercury in the media, we could find no published empirical examinations of media content related to mercury and fish specifically. We therefore sought to examine empirically the representations of this issue in newsprint media, focusing on the conceptualization of responsibility, specifically who is responsible for the contamination of fish with mercury and who is responsible for mitigating the risks it poses to people.

Media representations of environmental issues

Examinations of media depictions of the environment and environmental risks are important because the media is the primary source of information on the environment for most people (Hansen 1991; Leslie Beck 2000). Further, research has indicated that the media can have an agenda-setting effect and influence which environmental issues the public will be concerned about (Hansen 1991). Garnering an understanding of these media depictions is, therefore, important because "those particular forms of conceptualizing reality have significant implications for decisions, actions, and, at a more basic level, for the appreciation of existing possibilities" (Carvalho 2005: 2).

The research that has been conducted indicates that the media do not report on some risks. Whether or not a risk will be reported depends upon contextual issues, such as whether there are questions of blame, whether a visual image illustrating the impact of the risk is available, whether a large number of people are exposed to the risk, and whether there is conflict among experts regarding the risk (McCarthy Brennan, De Boer, and Ritson 2008). Media coverage tends to be event-focused and not really capable of covering long-term risks, particularly when there is scientific uncertainty regarding the issue (Anderson 2006). The attention paid to environmental risks varies depending upon how a given risk resonates with the larger culture. For instance, Hansen (1991) explains that environmental issues that can be framed in a manner consistent with "cultural givens," such as the conceptualization of humanity as above nature and of science and technology as our saviour, will receive more sustained attention.

The few examinations of media constructions of environmental crimes include studies of the Bhopal disaster (Lynch, Nalla, and Miller 1989), chemical crimes in Tampa, Florida (Lynch, Stretesky, and Hammond 2000), and federal petroleum refining violations (Jancell 2007). This research has demonstrated that the media underestimates long-term risks from environmental toxins and pollutants, while more dramatic risks, such as from accidents or natural disasters, are overestimated. Consequently, the media tend not to draw connections between environmental harm, crime, and public health (Jancell 2007).

One area at the nexus of environmental harm and public health that has been receiving increased media and scholarly attention is "food scares." Many "food scares," like the case of mercury-contaminated fish, result from the disruption, degradation, and manipulation of the environment...