Allen etal.: Seafood consumption rates among recreational anglers 



609 



possible differences in numbers of anglers using each 

 mode. We did not know how many anglers annually 

 used each mode and could not estimate the numbers 

 without conducting a special study. However, some 

 weighting occurred naturally owing to the different 

 numbers of anglers fishing (and hence being inter- 

 viewed) in each mode. Given the limitations and 

 available resources of the study, we believe that this 

 natural weighting provided the best estimate of an- 

 gler population size for each mode. 



The median consumption rate (21 g/day) for Santa 

 Monica Bay anglers was 70% of the national median 

 of 30 g/day (USEPA, 1990). Only 45% of the anglers 

 provided sufficient information for determination of 

 consumption rates. Thus, relatively fewer Santa 

 Monica Bay anglers may rely on their catch as a 

 major food source. In 1980 the median consumption 

 rate of Los Angeles anglers (estimated by the con- 

 sumable-portion method) was higher (37 g/day) than 

 the national median (which was 18.7 g/day) (Puffer 

 et al., 1981). In that study, upper-decile consump- 

 tion rates were 225 g/day; upper-decile consumption 

 rates in this study were 107 g/day. Thus, seafood con- 

 sumption rates among local anglers have decreased 

 substantially (median 43% and upper-decile 52%) 

 since 1980. This may be the result of health-risk warn- 

 ings (posted since 1985) regarding DDT and PCB con- 

 tamination of some species (Stull et al., 1987). 



Santa Monica Bay anglers generally consumed the 

 most commonly caught species at the highest rates. 

 These species included barred sand bass, Pacific bar- 

 racuda, kelp bass, combined rockfish species, and 

 California halibut, all of which have low PCB and 

 DDT levels (Pollock et al. 2 ; SCCWRP et al. 3 ). How- 

 ever, anglers also consumed white croaker at rela- 

 tively high rates even in areas where it has high lev- 

 els of PCB and DDT (Pollock et al. 2 ; SCCWRP et al. 3 ; 

 SCCWRP 4 ). Hispanic anglers were the primary con- 

 sumers of white croaker, commonly catching it at 

 Cabrillo Pier (where it is contaminated) (Pollock et 

 al. 2 ). However, although more Hispanics consumed 

 white croaker, blacks and Asians had higher con- 

 sumption rates for this species. 



Although current advisories warn anglers not to 

 consume white croaker in Santa Monica Bay and Los 

 Angeles-Long Beach Harbor (Pollock et al. 2 ), clearly 

 many anglers still eat this species. Many anglers 

 aware of the warnings did not alter their consump- 

 tion rates, reasoning that if there was a health risk, 

 they would experience ill effects within a day of eat- 

 ing the fish. Thus, agencies should improve commu- 

 nication of the risks by using a variety of media and 

 languages. For Santa Monica Bay they should com- 

 municate risks in English and Spanish (at minimum) 

 via television, newspapers and magazines, and posted 



signs, emphasizing piers and private boat launches 

 where anglers catch white croaker for consumption. 



Conclusions 



In 1991-92, median seafood consumption rates for 

 Santa Monica Bay anglers were lower than the na- 

 tional median. Consumption-rate distributions were 

 skewed strongly to the right; upper-decile rates were 

 often considerably higher than medians. Upper-decile 

 rates varied more among demographic groups and 

 species than did median rates; thus upper-decile 

 rates are valuable in identifying high-risk groups. 

 Overall, Asian and high-income anglers had the high- 

 est upper-decile consumption rates. Certain ethnic 

 groups consumed more of the potentially contami- 

 nated species (e.g. white croaker). The lack of a strong 

 response to health warnings by anglers indicates that 

 health advisories should communicate the health 

 risks from eating contaminated fish to specific eth- 

 nic groups at high-risk sites. Overall, consumption 

 rates determined by consumable-portion and fillet- 

 model methods were similar, but some species-spe- 

 cific rates did differ. 



Acknowledgments 



The authors thank the Santa Monica Bay Restora- 

 tion Project Seafood Consumption Task Force mem- 

 bers who included G. A. Pollock (California Environ- 

 mental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental 

 Health Hazard Assessment), P. A. Papanek (Los An- 

 geles County Department of Health Services), D. 

 Smith (California Department of Health Services), 

 M. Golden (National Marine Fisheries Service), and 

 P. Gregory (California Department of Fish and Game) 

 for advice on the procedures and methods used in 

 this project. The staff of MBC Applied Environmen- 

 tal Sciences conducted the field surveys and the staff 

 of Southern California Coastal Water Research 

 Project provided analysis of the data; EcoAnalysis, 

 Inc., assisted in planning the study. The authors also 

 thank the following individuals that participated in 

 this study: V. Raco, S. Moore, and D. Hallock (all of 

 the Southern California Coastal Water Research 

 Project); L. Le, S. H. Kramer, A. Hua, W J. Stockton, 

 R. C. Woody, V. J. Whitt, T I. Moskowitz; C. J. 

 Mitchell, S. J. Gruber, L. S. MacNair, and S. M. Klick 

 (all of MBC Applied Environmental Sciences); and 

 J. Zalinsky and D. Sherick (both of EcoAnalyis, Inc). 

 This study was funded by the Santa Monica Bay 

 Restoration Project (Contracts 0-095-140-0 and 

 3-084-140-1). 



