Human Health Focus Group
Oregon Fish Consumption Rate Project
August 9, 2007
10:00a.m. to 4:00p.m.
The following notes are a summary of issues that are intended to point out future actions or issues that may need further discussion at upcoming meetings. These notes are not intended to be the “record” of the meeting, only a reminder for the group.
The following Focus Group Members were present for all or part of the meeting:
Ken Kauffman (ODHS), Joan Rothlein (OHSU), Pat Cirone (former EPA employee), Elaine Faustman (on phone, UOW), Dave McBride (WDH), Sue MacMillan (URS)
Also Present: Kathleen Feehan (CTUIR), Becky Lindgren (EPA), Jordan Palmeri (DEQ), Deb Sturdevant (DEQ), Erin Halton (DS Consulting Facilitation Team), Theresa Kubo (EPA, facilitation assistance), Bruce Hope (DEQ), Patti Howard (on phone, CRITFC)
Review of Workshop 3
Jordan Palmeri, DEQ, acknowledged the quality of the presentations given by Focus Group Members at FCR Workshop 3 in Portland, OR. Sue MacMillan and Kathleen Feehan noted that the informal ‘survey’ of participants’ fish consumption was a useful and interactive workshop activity; the survey results showed a mean consumption of 91 grams per day and 29% of the participants said that their own fish consumption had been reduced by what they had learned about contaminants in fish. Jordan added that he came away from the workshop with a sense that the participants desired more substance and said that the FCR planning team would be looking to improve on that aspect and shape the agenda as best it can for the next workshop.
FCR Studies Review
The Focus Group began to discuss which of the local, regional and national fish consumption studies were most relevant and useful for this work effort. The group noted some of their personal observations as they reviewed the studies and prepared for this focus group meeting:
• Question for Lon Kissinger, EPA: how were outliers considered in the Suquamish Study? (lines 22 and 23 in Jordan’s table.)
• Pat Cirone found it interesting that for Native Americans, most are consumers – as she reviewed the studies, she tried to focus on the consumer-only statistics. There will be a need to clarify the difference between per-capita vs. consumer-only when referring to studies.
o Elaine Faustman suggested that we’re trying to achieve protection for consumers.
• Joan Rothlein and Sue MacMillan noted that they focused on studies that were conducted in areas that are geographically similar to Oregon.
• Dave McBride asked whether the group felt the studies had captured data from enough high-consuming populations (i.e. what about the fish eating vegetarians, who rely on fish for protein instead of red meat or other poultry?)
o He suggested the focus group may also want to consider the Washington based BRFSS study. He noted that the study was particularly relevant because of its representation of a broad Oregon population.
o ACTION: Dave planned to send focus group members copies of the BRFSS study.
• Elaine commented that study results are weighted by how available fish are in each particular geographical area.
• Kathleen Feehan suggested adding a line in the table of studies that specifies the time span of each study.
• Pat Cirone suggested that the group focus on the ‘process’ of each study and then decide whether that process fits with what this focus group is trying to achieve: using the most relevant data to make recommendations to the state on which study data they should use in setting a new fish consumption rate.
o Elaine added that the usefulness/relevance of each study should be explained to the general public in a way that makes sense.
o Deb Sturdevant suggested that the group might state the following: “we decided to focus on these nine studies, and of these, ____ are the most relevant because _____.” As for which fish consumption rate/range is selected, there could be a study out there that concludes an opposing rate/range. The focus of the focus groups’ final report should be on the process used in making recommendations/conclusions.
The “Three Bar System” Evaluation of Studies
The group proceeded to discuss each study one by one and use a “three bar” evaluation system, for the purpose of group measurement of the weight/relevance of each studies. The three bars were described as follows:
Bar 1 = Should the study be included at all?
Bar 2 = Why/how is this study of value for inclusion?
Bar 3 = Would the Focus Group recommend that the State use the data/rates generated from this study in its deliberation?
CRITFC Study: (Meets bars 1, 2, 3) because:
• The study says in detail who is consuming fish, and why
• Random selection used
• Multiple Tribes sampled
• Surveyed participants’ 24 hour recall as well as weekly, monthly, seasonal and 20 year average intake
• Determined grams per week, then calculated to reach grams per day/month conclusions.
• Good documentation on how included/excluded outliers
CRITFC Re-Evaluation Study: (Meets bars 1, 2) because:
• Aimed to look more closely at children, these outliers were put back in
o Note: “child” was defined at 0-6 in the first CRITFC study and 0-5 in the re-evaluation, which affects the data.
• The study does not meet a level ‘3’ because it was thesis-driven and focused on toxilogical content.
EPA’s Review of CSFII: (Meets bars 1, 2, and 3*w/caveats) because:
• Although the study is less relevant to our region, as it does not reflect the unique geographical aspects of the Pacific NW, it:
o Provides good supportive evidence and general trends.
o Reaches level ‘3’ because of the value of the consumer-only data – it will be important to distinguish why the focus group has confidence in this data set.
Tulalip/Squaxin Island Tribes: (Meets bars 1, 2, and 3*w/caveats) because:
• It is regionally relevant
• It includes children, but excludes adolescent population
• Includes questionnaire data
• The study trends well with CRITFC re-evaluation study
• It does include marine/fresh-water species that aren’t as relevant to Oregon freshwater species, so it will be important to note this as a caveat to its level ‘3’ status.
o It does provide good data on tribes harvesting marine species.
• The study provides strong statistical analysis of outliers.
Suquamish Tribe: (Meets bars 1, 2, and 3*w/caveats) because:
• The process used was very similar to the CRITFC and Tulalip/Squaxin studies
o Provides consumer-only data
o Excludes adolescent population
• The study includes a significant shellfish component.
• Reaches a level ‘3’, but it will be important to use the consumption data that is attributed to consumption of species that are relevant to those found in Oregon.
Sauvy Island: (Meets bars 1, 2) because:
• Overall, the focus group had difficulty in pulling useable data from the study.
• Does not meet a level ‘3’ because of its small sample size.
o Also, possible bias in using a quarter of the net weight of the fish caught.
• Interview questions focused on what participants caught on the day they were surveyed.
• The study does provide good information on identifying user populations.
• The study methodology does a good job of addressing fish preparation methods.
• The study does provide data on non-tribal fish consumers.
• Note: creel studies all conclude a rate that is relatively lower than questionnaire studies.
Asian and Pacific Islander: (Meets bars 1, 2, and 3*w/caveats) because:
• The study is a ‘3’ with caveats as there are distinctions that need to be made about the source of the fish and the species of fish consumed.
• The study lumped ethnic groups together.
• The number of participants surveyed were 202 the first round, and only 99 were surveyed for the re-interview
o The re-interview results differ vastly from the first round.
• Results showed that 80% of the fish consumed by participants was purchased rather than caught and 50% was shellfish.
Lake Whatcomb: (Meets bars 1, 2, and 3*w/caveats) because:
• The study is useful as it is representative of data from a Pacific NW lake that is near an urban area.
• The study was well constructed it its methodology.
• The study provides data that can be compared with data from other studies that surveyed predominantly white, angler-type consumers.
• There is a caveat to this study reaching a level ‘3’: the lower consumption rate determined by the study can be attributed to a perception that the lake is polluted. This is a bias not accounted for directly in the study.
Lake Roosevelt: (Meets bar 1) because:
• The study altered its questionnaire between years 1 and 2.
• The study focused on tribal members who rented boats.
• It is useful in that it provides an example of how a study didn’t meet the criteria for inclusion in focus group recommendation to the state (as is the case with other Oregon lake/river studies.)
Discussion of Trends/Looking Ahead
The group discussed factors they’ll be mindful of as they begin pulling together trends for their report; Elaine Faustman offered the following list of criteria:
• How (i.e. what and how much) are populations in the NW region consuming as compared to national population consumption rates?
• How do we relate those local statistics to the national statistics?
• How diverse are those populations, and how do they use their available fish resources?
• What are the quantitative trends that can be identified?
• How to clarify the consumer-only approach?
Becky Chu reminded the group that the EPA guidance comes from the 2000 preference hierarchy: to use local data, to use regional data where local data is not available, and then to use national data that is reflective of local data. The current default rate is based on the 99th percentile. She added that in 2003, concerns were raised that not enough regional data was used in the process to set the default rate. Focus group members generated the following trends among studies during the meeting:
• Regarding fish, there are multiple species/preparation/users
o Fish meal size is consistent
o Most studies capture multiple species (whether finfish, shellfish or marine)
• Regarding people, many of the studies focus on specific user groups. The broader population in Oregon could be better represented
o The BRFSS study that Dave planned to send out to the focus group may help to supplement this gap.
o Children and adults are well represented, but there is little data for adolescents.
o Anglers are under-represented.
• Regarding quantitative trends:
o The 90th percentile is about twice the mean for children
o The adult consumer and tribal means are about 10x the default 17.5 rate.
o The current default rate is NOT reflective of the 90th percentile rate for consumers.
▪ Tribal consumption is within the order of magnitude of national standards for consumers but is still 10-20 fold higher than the default rate
• A statement will need to be made that reflects how good consumption data is especially relative to salmon and migratory vs. non-migratory species. This will be important to Relative Source Contribution discussion.
Actions/Process Next Steps:
• Becky said she would work with Jordan and Kathleen in taking a first crack at drafting a focus group report. She said they will look to the focus group to refine the report.
• The Focus Group was tasked with reviewing RSC information and sending comments to the Planning Team by 8/23.
• Question for Lon Kissinger, EPA: how were outliers considered in the Suquamish Study? (lines 22 and 23 in Jordan’s table.) Becky will try to find the answer to this and share with everyone.
• Dave McBride said he would distribute the BRFSS study.
• The Focus Group will continue to coordinate offline with the Planning Team as we move forward.