Environmental Justice - Mercury in the Environment - page 313

behaviors and lifestyles while the general public is not
required to make any sacrifi ces. In addition to distributive
inequities, environmental injustice also stems from cul-
tural discrimination because of differences in normative
values attached to fi sh, fi shing, and fi sh consumption. For
indigenous populations in particular, fi sh, fi shing, and fi sh
consumption are indispensable to their physical, social,
economic, political, spiritual, and cultural health, practices
that the general population cannot relate to and tend to
ridicule. The implicit cultural discrimination associated
with the policy of risk avoidance is well captured in the
following commentary by Harper and Harris (2008, p. 66):

even to the point of incurring more risk than the general
public accepts because of the greater cultural importance
of fi sh (Harper and Harris, 2008).
Fish advisories may result in un-intended risk tradeoffs
that can exacerbate health inequalities. O'Neill (2004)
elaborated on this point rather eloquently:

If those exposed change their ways in order to avoid risks
posed by contamination, they may adopt practices that sub-
ject them to a different set of risks. To the extent that those
affected “comply” with fi sh consumption advisories, the
potential for countervailing risks is a serious concern, given
the celebrated nutritional benefi ts of frequent fi sh consump-
tion. Fish are an effi cient source of protein, omega-3 fatty
acids, selenium, and other nutrients important to human
health. By forgoing these benefi ts, those affected may open
themselves to an increased risk of coronary and other dis-
eases. In addition, for those for whom fi sh forms a part of a
traditional diet, including those in the fi shing tribes of the
upper Great Lakes, regular consumption of fi sh and other
traditional foods may function to promote health and to
combat diabetes, a particular concern for tribes given the
high rate of diabetes among American Indians and Alaska
Natives.

This [not eating fi sh] is not only a decision paradigm of bal-
ancing risks against benefi ts, but also of adding more risk
due to contaminants to a pre-existing cultural and possible
health defi cit from lost nutrition and the other negative
effects of lost fi sh. Although agency decision makers, drawn
largely from the general population, may think that tribal
members make poor decisions by eating the fi sh knowing
they contain unsafe levels of contaminants, there are other
perspectives. . . . Many traditional people give no further
consideration to further reducing their fi sh consumption,
other than to recognize that they now bear an additional
burden of chemical contaminants, one that they willingly
share with their swimming relatives.

Thus, by promoting a policy that allows signifi cant mer-
cury contamination to remain in place and relying instead
on fi sh-consumption advisories, the regulators are help-
ing to perpetuate a long history of cultural discrimination
against American Indian peoples.
By intervening late in the chain linking contamination
and human health effects, fi sh-consumption advisories as a
tool fail to address any of the various other adverse effects
of mercury that do not directly threaten human health,
such as the effects on all nonhuman components of con-
taminated ecosystems. “Loons cannot read fi sh consump-
tion advisories” as O'Neill (2004) curtly noted. This calls
into question the validity of risk-benefi t models used to
support the policies on fi sh-consumption advisories. Any
policies or programs that disproportionately burden the
natural resources must be considered an injustice to the
people that depend on such resources.

Since fi sh advisories are not always effective, they may
actually perpetrate the health inequalities. The problem
becomes magnifi ed when the people affected do not speak
English, are culturally different from the general popu-
lation, and/or are opposed to elements of this particular
risk-management strategy on philosophical, moral, or cul-
tural grounds. It has been reported that half of the people
consuming fi sh caught recreationally on the Great Lakes
were not aware of the relevant fi sh-consumption adviso-
ries, with people of color, women, and those without a
high-school education showing the least awareness (Tilden
et al., 1997). For many people in the environmental justice
community, it is diffi cult to understand the complex risk-
benefi t information to make an informed choice of balanc-
ing chemical risk with the health and cultural benefi ts,

References

Agyeman, J. 2005. Where justice and sustainability meet.
Environment 47: 10-23.
AMAP. 1998. Assessment report: arctic pollution issues. Arctic
Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Oslo, Norway.
AMAP. 2003. Assessment 2002: Human health in the Arctic. Arctic
Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Oslo, Norway.
AMAP. 2005. Assessment 2002: heavy metals in the Arctic. Arctic
Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Oslo, Norway.
Anderton, D., Anderson, A., Oakes, J., and Fraser, M. 1994.
Environmental equity: the demographics of dumping.
Demography 31 (2): 229-248.
Anderton, D., Anderson, A., Rossi, P. Oakes, J., Fraser, M.,
Weber, E., and Calabrese, E. 1994. Hazardous waste

facilities. “Environmental equity” issues in metropolitan
areas. Evaluation Review 18 (2): 123-140.
Anderton, D., Oakes, J., and Egan, K. 1997. Environmental
equity in Superfund: demographics of discovery and
prioritization of abandoned toxic sites. Evaluation Review
21 (1): 2-26.
Armstrong, F.A.J., and Hamilton, A.L. 1973. Pathways of
mercury in a polluted Northwestern Ontario lake. In: Singer,
P.C . ( E d.), Trace metals and metal-organic interactions in natural
waters. Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 131-156.
Atlas, M.K. 2001. Safe and sorry: risk, environmental equity,
and hazardous waste management facilities. Risk Analysis 21
(5): 939-954.