摘要：The BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill was enormously newsworthy; coverage interlaced discussions of health, economic, and environmental impacts and risks. We analyzed 315 news articles that considered Gulf seafood safety from the year following the spill. We explored reporting trends, risk presentation, message source, stakeholder perspectives on safety, and framing of safety messages. Approximately one third of articles presented risk associated with seafood consumption as a standalone issue, rather than in conjunction with environmental or economic risks. Government sources were most frequent and their messages were largely framed as reassuring as to seafood safety. Discussions of prevention were limited to short-term, secondary prevention approaches. These data demonstrate a need for risk communication in news coverage of food safety that addresses the larger risk context, primary prevention, and structural causes of risk. The British Petroleum (BP) Deepwater Horizon oil spill (“the oil spill”) in the Gulf of Mexico was the largest offshore oil spill in US history. 1 This event presented interlaced threats to local economies, fisheries, sensitive habitats and human health. From the oil spill’s start on April 20, 2010, to the near complete reopening of fishing waters on November 15, 2010, news coverage was extensive and generated greater reader interest than other leading news stories. 2 Somewhat astonishingly, for the first 100 days, oil spill coverage accounted for 22% of the US newshole (space given to news content) 2 ; 1 survey found that up to 50% to 60% of respondents followed the story “very closely.” 2 The present study explores the ways in which the safety of seafood for human consumption was presented amid other seafood-related risks in US print news media coverage of the oil spill. News coverage is a key source through which the public learns about health risks, 3,4 particularly during heightened awareness situations. In assessing the messages about seafood safety, we address the dynamics and multiple potential functions 5 of risk communication in print media. The news media as a social institution frequently stands apart from those that bear responsibility for the creation and management of risk and make risks perceptible to the public. 3 Instead, the news media select among possible expert and lay sources, each which could have different interpretations of the issue at hand. 6 To these sources, journalists contribute their own frames to create a story while also responding to deadlines, resource constraints, and sales pressures. 3,7 As a medium for risk communication in a politically sensitive contamination event such as the BP oil spill, news coverage faces potential extremes: downplaying food risk to avoid local economic fallout and therefore underinforming the public, focusing only on technical risk assessment and avoiding the many other interpretations of risk, or stigmatizing the domestic or regional seafood supply by highlighting dangers. 8 If long-range effects of media coverage are important, then the function of risk communication becomes more than the immediate avoidance of a hazard. 5 Risk communication via the news media may also influence how the public understands direct and indirect causes of a risk issue. If the larger context of risk is highlighted, the various publics may pursue opportunities to engage in prevention via policy or structural means. 9 To assess (1) the newsworthiness of seafood safety, (2) factors potentially shaping public perception of risk, and (3) short- and long-term risk messaging about Gulf seafood safety, we examined coverage volume across various news outlets, the sources referenced in the stories, reference to cause, and depth of risk information provided in news coverage of the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. In particular, we examine how health messages presented in the news media reflect the complex interplay of economic, environmental, and health concerns. We address the following 4 questions: (1) How and where are human health threats of fish consumption being discussed as part of the oil spill news coverage?; (2) Do health risks associated with eating Gulf seafood appear alone or are they paired with other oil spill related risks?; (3) When an article includes a quote about seafood safety, who is the source and how does that source frame issues of seafood safety?; and finally (4) What parties are identified as responsible for ensuring seafood safety after the oil spill? The oil spill story is complex. Rather than a single narrative, it is perhaps better understood as numerous, intertwined news threads. These include issues such as the human tragedy of the explosion, ecological damage, future of the Gulf economy, energy policies, industrial regulation, cultural impacts, and the health consequences. In a report detailing the 3 main human health threats from the oil spill, seafood safety was identified along with direct oil contact and mental health issues. 10 Consuming oil-contaminated seafood increases exposure to carcinogens known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) 11 or dispersants. 12,13 Seafood safety presents a unique dimension of risk communication in the oil spill. Many direct health threats associated with the oil spill are local, whereas the public health implications of seafood safety have both local and national impact. Though Gulf residents consume more seafood than the national average, 14 Gulf seafood is sold and consumed throughout the United States. Ninety percent of the crawfish, 70% of shrimp, and 69% of oysters caught in the United States come from the US Gulf Coast fisheries. 15 Some of the main Gulf seafood exports—shrimp, crab, and oysters—are more vulnerable to PAHs than other seafood because their systems are less able to clear these contaminants. 11,16 Certain types of seafood come predominantly from the Gulf, overall, but only 16% of the US seafood supply is sourced from the Gulf of Mexico. 17 From a national perspective, consumers may assume information about the Gulf oil spill applies to most of their seafood, and this misunderstanding could change seafood purchasing accordingly. Alternatively, the attention to domestic seafood risk could cause consumers to lose sight of concerns about imported seafood, such as the risk of contamination with antimicrobial drugs, 18 rather than making a more rational and informed calculus. Finally, the messages on seafood safety evolved over time moving from more to less uncertainty regarding actual rather than feared contamination with PAHs. According to 2 studies, ultimately the exposure risk posed to humans from oil- or dispersant-contaminated seafood in the Gulf was low. 13 Readings from approximately 8000 seafood samples for 13 individual carcinogenic PAHs and a dispersant were found in low concentrations or below the limits of quantitation. When detected, the concentrations were at least two orders of magnitude lower than the level of concern for human health risk. 19 (p4) Although the findings show minimal seafood contamination, the US Food and Drug Administration has been criticized for problematic exposure assessment in terms of underestimating human seafood consumption levels, not applying sufficient safety margins for children’s consumption, and overestimating body weight when considering exposure. 11,16,20 The evolving nature of the data on seafood contamination and challenges to the assessment process underscore the uncertainty involved in terms of what messages could and should be communicated to whom at what point. From a public health perspective, the news media’s communication about seafood as a risky or healthy food source in the context of the oil spill is particularly relevant. Not only is the safety of Gulf seafood a standalone public health concern, but risk messages can also be detrimental if they disproportionately amplify concern and thus discourage consumption of seafood in general. 21 Similarly, insufficient discussion of risk does not adequately inform consumers for their food choices. The quality of Gulf seafood is closely entwined with the economic and environmental future of the Gulf. Local reporting of seafood risk becomes a potentially delicate matter of gauging health and economic impacts. Finally, the extent to which these 3 risks (economic, environmental, and health) were reported as linked was of interest as the connections between environmental concerns and food systems concerns have not always been adequately addressed in the news media, missing an opportunity to detail the path from environmental problems to human health challenges. 22
