Using and Communicating the Comparative Dietary Risk Framework

This framework and approach could be used by state, tribal, and local risk managers who set fish advisories to provide additional information on possible health benefits to those who fish and eat fish. Because of the dataintense process and results of the fish consumption index (FCI), a solid risk communication program is necessary to ensure successful usage of the information generated. The risk communication process associated with fish consumption health advisories has been described in depth in U.S. EPA’s Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories, Vol. 4 (U.S. EPA, 1995b). This article summarizes key elements of that process applied to the comparative dietary risk framework, emphasizing that risk communication is a process of information exchange between the target audience and the risk communicator. Two cautions about communicating information from the framework should be reiterated. First, instituting a risk communication program assumes the existence of quality information to communicate. Developing a risk communication approach at this stage of evolution in the Comparative Dietary Risk Framework is appropriate; however, implementing a risk communication program is not appropriate until the data are available for calculating the actual values that would be used in the framework and the FCI. Second, although the framework provides a mechanism for comparing risks and benefits associated with fish consumption, it is not a justification for accepting fish consumption risks as long as there is a net benefit. Decisions about acceptable risks and distribution of risks and benefits throughout society is a social decision, to be made collectively by the communities affected