Human Health Focus Group
3/10/08 Meeting
Facilitator’s Summary of Discussion
The following is a summary of the discussion of the Human Health Focus Group (HHFG) held on March 10, 2008. These notes are not a verbatim account of the meeting, rather are meant to serve as a reminder of ideas and actions discussed.
Range of Fish Consumption Rates
All members of the HHFG agreed to develop a range of rates they would recommend be considered by DEQ to make a policy decision on a new FCR, based on the entirety of the group’s work to date on this project and coming from a human health, scientific-based perspective. The group requested that DEQ share DEQ’s revised internal analysis and range of rates, per discussions in January between HHFG members and DEQ staff, with the HHFG – and agreed that lining up the two ranges and describing the different approaches (HHFG and DEQ) should be the responsibility of DEQ. It was noted that the strongest concern the HHFG had with the approach DEQ used to develop the range was that it combined statistics from different studies.
Criteria and Comments
The group stepped through a ‘filtering’ process for narrowing the available fish consumption rates from each of the studies they considered to a range that was acceptable to all members of the group. To do this, they used Table 1 from Appendix 2 of the draft HHFG report – Jordan Palmeri had sent the table as a stand-alone document on February 21, 2008. ‘Filters’ were put on each column to reduce the number of possible rates. The narrative to support those filters is summarized by column below. A new matrix of ‘HHFG Recommended Range of FCRs’ will be added to the Report which will include narrative language on how the HHFG arrived at the range.
Column – Group: Keep all Regional West studies in. Add Lake Watcum, Lake Roosevelt and Sauvie Island studies back in to Table 1 (these studies were later filtered out but it was important to include in Table 1 all the studies that were reviewed).
Column – Subgroup: Include children at different age brackets, women and adults in Table 1, but do not include ‘breast feeding women’ and ‘children’ in the extracted range. Rationale: Breast feeding women were extracted because they are ‘covered’ by the other adult consumption rates. Fish consumption rates are lower for children so they are not included in the range, but children are not necessarily ‘covered’ due to their varying body weights from adults. Jordan will make sure the proper language is used for ‘breastfeeding women’ in Table 1 (currently breastfeeding? Have at one time breast-fed?).
Column – Seafood Source: Include only those studies that considered ‘all’ available sources – rivers, streams, coastal waters, store-bought. Rationale: Many surveys acknowledge the uncertainty of food source, and consumers are potentially affected by all sources. [See also language provided from Elaine Faustman on the report regarding this issue – insert same narrative to explain how the HHFG arrived at their filter for this column].
Column – Species: Include the rate that included marine species for the general population. Rationale: While the group was concerned that marine species encompasses deep ocean fish in the surveys, the raw data was not available from which to extract just salmon from marine species. As salmon is a major component of consumption in Oregon, the group believed this was the only way to include salmon in considerations of a range of fish consumption rates.
Column – Consumer only/non-consumer: Include consumer-only surveys.
Column – Mean, median, percentiles: Include all percentiles for the remaining studies. Remove the ‘bold’ emphasis from mean and median numbers in Table 1. Include the mean for Asian and Pacific Islanders study, if available.
At the end of the filtering process, five studies/numbers were left to make up a recommended range of rates, which will be depicted in a matrix in the report and discussed at the April 2 public workshop.
Next Steps
• Pat and Joan will provide additional information on the anglers studies to include as footnotes to Table 1 – this will allow readers to access information to calculate the numbers. (It was noted that the anglers studies, while not used in the extracted ranges, will add credibility and reinforce the range the HHFG came up with.)
• Jordan will send his draft presentation and Bruce’s revised analysis/presentation to the HHFG as soon as available next week (the week of March 17).
• Jordan will work on edits to the Report and send the final to the HHFG next week.
• Jordan will develop a new matrix depicting the extracted range of FCRs per today’s discussion, and send it to the HHFG next week.
• The group will reconvene on a conference call on March 25 from 2-5 pm to finalize the report and presentation for the April 2 workshop; Jordan will arrange a conference call-in line and pass it on to the group before then.
• All members plan to travel to Pendleton for the April 2 FCR workshop. DEQ will reimburse for travel and accommodation expenses. Kathleen Feehan will send information on places to stay in Pendleton.