Search results

Purpose – This chapter examines the literature on the dangers of methylmercury exposure and the 2004 Food and Drug Administration/Environmental Protection Agency (FDA/EPA) Advisory on fish consumption. It analyzes the extent to which particular groups of people living in the United States are vulnerable to toxic food consumption and the extent to which the advisories put them at risk.

Design/methodology/approach – The authors conducted a review of the literature related to methylmercury. In addition, they used archival information from government documents. They also analyzed the fish advisories and educational information posted on websites of each state's Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program.

Findings – Methylmercury is a potent neurotoxin that can seriously affect fetal brain growth and development. Although the federal government promotes canned tuna as an inexpensive, beneficial protein source, recent reports indicate that a large proportion of America's favorite fish contains unsafe levels of methylmercury. Populations at risk for overconsumption include minorities and low-income groups, particularly recipients of federal subsidies such as WIC.

Practical implications – The FDA uses a “nuanced” message to offer consumers information about both the risks and benefits of eating fish. However, the advisory is not widely distributed and information on mercury levels in fish is not available at the point of sale. Minority populations are less likely to be aware of fish advisories and to change consumption habits. Thus, the target population remains largely uninformed and possibly misled about the risks and benefits of eating canned tuna.

Social implications – Based on new data, the federal government should recognize mercury as a hazard, update its consumption guidelines, and better monitor the mercury content in canned tuna. Outreach and educational programs should target minority and at-risk groups. The authors recommend an alternative precautionary approach in dealing with the health threats posed by methylmercury in tuna fish.

The environmental justice perspective represents a significant reframing of the traditional environmental discourse. Although few scholars in the environmental field pay attention to environmental framing, it is extremely important in the field. Environmental activists, policymakers, government, politicians, and business have long perceived, contextualized, and battled over environmental issues by establishing frames of reference. Framing refers to the process by which individuals and groups identify, interpret, and express social and political grievances. It is a scheme of interpretations that guides the way in which ideological meanings and beliefs are packaged by movement activists and presented to would-be supporters. Beliefs are important because they can be defined as ideas that might support or retard action in pursuit of desired values, goals, or outcomes. Social movement collective action frames are injustice frames because they are developed in opposition to already existing, established, widely accepted ideas, values, and beliefs. However, the social movement frames are intended to identify, highlight, and/or define unjust social conditions. Activists trying to develop new frames have to overcome the hurdle that many people (including would-be supporters) might accept the established or hegemonic frame as normal and/or tolerable. Collective action frames deny the immutability of undesirable conditions and promote the possibility of change through group action. Hence, social movement activists become potential social change agents in charge of their own destiny. They feel empowered to alter conditions (Goffman, 1974; Snow & Benford, 1992, 1988; Snow, Rochford, Worden, & Benford, 1986; Turner & Killian, 1987; Piven & Cloward, 1979, p. 12; McAdam, 1982; Gamson, 1992; Gamson & Meyer, 1996).