Human Health Focus Group
Meeting #3
June 11, 2007
Oregon Fish Consumption Rate
Present:
Elaine Faustman
Pat Cirone
Ken Kauffman
Dave McBride
Joan Rothlein
Sue McMillan
Deb Sturdevant
Jordan Palmeri
Patty Howard
Kathleen Feehan
Observer:
Nancy Judd
On the phone:
Becky Lindgren
• Agenda Review
o Kathleen asked group what are the most important things to address
o Number 5 is most important
o Ask about Lincoln city
o Criteria for putting additional things on the list
o Switching #4 and 5
• Gave overview of Lincoln City Workshop
• Policy questions #2 is better worded if we define the level of consumption within the whole population rather than say the level of consumption for a target population.
• CRITFC study
▪ biggest debate is the outliers (1 child and 4 adults)
▪ Very little zero consumption
▪ Higher end is elder males
▪ Name of statistician not given
▪ Elders (55 older), children (0-6), women of childbearing (had children within the last 5 years
▪ Did both a dietary recall and interview portion….analysis of dietary recall was barely analyzed. Didn’t get a lot of fish eating because it was winter.
▪ Did not get body weight of people (limitation)…all the other surveys used the CRITFC methodology but did record body weight
▪ Children – if there was a child in the house, the adult was asked but the data may only reflect one child per household.
▪ Interviewers were tribal people
▪ Can look at data set as a true number and as a weighted number
▪ Low fish year during interview
▪ Participants were paid – distance from the office affected the
▪ Source of fish 88% Columbia river- not in national study
▪ US survey – dominant store bought
▪ National study mostly store bought fish
▪ CRTIFC study had uncooked fish
▪ National- whatever you ate…EPA just created an uncooked method through a formula with the cooked
▪ Important to distinguish bwteen the tpe of fish…cooked?, uncooked?
▪ National – also a nutritional study
▪ National – species codes for different species…national study included all species…EPA evaluation applied a convention to be able to lump marine, freshwater, esturine, they applied NOAA catch data
▪ National – no uncertainty analysis in EPA study…not too many uncertainties
▪ National – 2 day non consecutive – if you ate both days then you would average the consumption from both days. Only ate one day, then you used that number for average.
▪ EPA used consumers and non comsumers
▪ CRITFC…used lower end of response for the tribal response for a range but did not specify in national study
▪ Males tend to have higher consumption and CRITFC has more females
▪ Outliers...
▪ Consumers v. non consumers, differences can only be seen in the averages and not the high end of consumers
▪ National study..over half of survery population is non consumer
▪ CRITFC – salmon and steelhead, sea run cutthroat, are considered together....very difficult to distinguish between what is actually salmon consumption and what is just consumption of resident trout
▪ National – determined that salmon for the pacific were marine, and this was determined because the NOAA catch data said they were caught
▪ EPA per capitat – page(section 2.1.2) – discussion of salmon and where they come from.
▪ National – 96 percent were considered marine
▪ CRITFC – conglomeration of 4 tribes…when they picked the 142 subsistence number, this was an EPA policy call…they felt this was appropriate…but EPA did not use a whole set of data on other subsistence population
▪ EPA policy for choosing an FCR for …use the mean for consumers only as the min
▪ Patty…is the definition of subsistence populations important to this group
▪ Do they include depletion of resources?...the CRITFC study does cover the amount of fishing that used to happen versus what they fish today
▪ Should we separate limitation that are lowering versus the ones that may be raising their estimate.
▪ We should be looking at history of fishing as well as current day stats
▪ Phenominal that we have regional specific data…and why was this
▪ Makes it more relevant for a larger population by combining the 4 tribes…made it more relevant for more tribal population
▪ Analysis does have a leveling affect by averaging
▪ There are remarkable similarities between high consuming populations at high rates for many different studies
▪ Maybe we need to somehow demonstrate that this is not unique to other situations.
▪ Lon – 142…99th percentile from non-consumers HH methodology (section 4 exposure)(becky will find this)
• Could someone transparently ID where these numbers come from?
• Suquamish rates…cannot get their data
• Some of the assumptions really need to be worked out so anyone can clearly find out where these came from
• National study – was any of the data collected in the NW?
o Someone would have to look into this
• Is there a study that does any correlation between Fish Consumption patterns and fishing
• Study out of France, compared fish consumption rates along the coast, and interior
• Tribal…during survey…showed cooked…but recorded in an uncooked weight…need to do a recipe correction…this is in Lon’s software
• CRITFC…took the data as uncooked
• Just included edible meat
• EPA survey had averaged the two days…sensitivity analysis conducted….national…a very good estimate of an overall smapshot…but not good for distributional analysis…
• Estimated per capita – sum across two days (page 2-7) …there was a lot of discussion about the way the way was added up
• What sort of data presentation is the group comfortable with to present in the public arena. Some of the Squaxin island data is sensitive and not included in Lon’s
• GET Memos from Lon! – becky can help with this
• Biggest uncertainties, Puget sound group…fraction harvested from Puget sound…took fraction of salmon and multiplied that by the fraction of slmon harvested from Puget…did the same for the pelagic and benthic sound (the memo clarifies this)
• Number of respondents characterizing a population is an important…we should look at the stats on acceptable toelerance levels on the upper confidence level…characterize the uncertainty around how well the population sampled actually represents the population as a whole
• Outlier…suuamish left outliers in…
• See similar patterns of consumption among similar populations
▪ Sue MacMillan and discussion
• API – limitation is that most of fish is harvested from stores, could be applied to a general population in Oregon but there certainly are differences because of availability
• 30-40 species looked at – recruitment of individuals recorded…from the API community. Posted adds and put ads in the newspaper…this is only first and second generation of API
• Probably the first generation people eat more fish
• Lon’s reanalysis of this data gets into more details
• Tulalip and Squaxin
o Done to provide data for the development of criteria for WQS
o Refer to sue’s notes (handout)
• Don’t know how applicable it is in Oregon because there may be species and fishing variability between different populations
o There may be quite a few differences in consumption patterns…eating shellfish was much higher for shelfish
o There was a point made about the children in the Tulalip and Squaxin tribe
o Sue wrote down questions and will write us all back
• Subsistence is an important issue
• Chinook, pick, steelhead, smelt (eat whole body)
▪ Dave McBride
• Suquamish – refer to notes
• 39 pages and 25 dollars cash for filling it out
• conducted in july august and September
• elders consulted in the questionnaire
• finfish and shellfish grouped into categories
• 24 hour recall and interview data…the interview data was used to derive the stats (need to check on this)
▪ We can consider the data that is regional specific, there are some things about the national study that are not totally relevant, we can emphasize the consistency among the studies