Andrew et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2016), 2: 1220344 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2016.1220344 FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY | RESEARCH ARTICLE Perceptions about mercury and lead in fish consumed in Lake Albert fishing communities Uganda Tamale Andrew1*, Ejobi Francis1, Muyanja Charles2, Irene Naigaga1, Nakavuma Jesca1, Ocaido Micheal1, Katuhoire Anne3 and Amulen Deborah4 Abstract: Fish consumption is a lifestyle in fishing communities influenced by indi- vidual and communal perceptions. However, information about individual perceptions about fish consumption in the vulnerable fishing community in a developing country is lacking. Without this study, the benefits of fish consumption in a vulnerable commu- nity may not be realized. Data collection was executed using key informant interviews and survey structured questionnaires. The key informants include fisheries, commu- nity development, veterinary, community and environmental officers. The household heads were the respondents. The Qualitative data was organized and queried using QSR Nvivo 10 and quantitative data analyzed with SPSS version 22. The perceived benefits of eating fish are health, income, nutrition and manhood. The perceived risks are Stigma and ill health. The factors increasing fish consumption are heedless of fish consumption benefits (p = 0.041) and household size i.e. number of adults more than seven (p = 0.020). Those decreasing are methods of preparation of fish i.e. boiling and frying (p = 0.019 and p = 0.010) and oblivious about organizations dealing with fish- ing activities (p = 0.029). An awareness campaign is needed to demystify the health benefits and fallacies of fish consumption. The knowledge on individual perceptions associated with fish consumption will increase fish consumption but with fewer risks. *Corresponding author: Tamale Andrew, College of Veterinary Medicine, Animal Resources and Biosecurity, Makerere University, P.O. Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda E-mail: andietam@gmail.com Reviewing editor: Fatih Yildiz, Middle East Technical University, Turkey Additional information is available at the end of the article ABOUT THE AUTHOR Tamale Andrew is a cohort four CARTA fellow, educator, junior researcher and a PhD student at Makerere University. He earned a BVM in 2002. Masters of Veterinary Preventive Medicine 2010 and Master of Public Health 2015 at the University of Makerere and Minnesota respectively. He is an architect of the “One Health Residency” and enthusiast of One Health. He has a passion for job and wealth creation among the fishing communities. His research interests are food safety, Risk Analysis, Epidemiology especially of Zoonoses and environmental health issues that are always threatening the world eco-systems. The current research is looking at sociocultural, fish and health risks attributed to lead and mercury uptake in fishing communities in developing countries. Tamale is committed to making Africa and the world a better place through ACP3 approach to foster skilling, vocational training and achieving the “One health ultimatum”. PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT Fish consumption is a way of life for fishing communities worldwide. This practice is associated with benefits and risks. Unfortunately, very few people are aware of the advantages and risks related to eating fish. Lack of information about the associated advantages and risks in a fishing community might lower fish consumption amounts. The study, therefore, set out to establish the advantages and risks related to fish consumption in the fishing community. The fishing community listed health, income, nutrition and sex improvement as the benefits of fish consumption. The risks were sickness and dislike of small fish. The advantages and risks depended on the family size, cooking method and awareness about fish monitoring organizations. Therefore, there is the need for a sensitization campaign about the fish hazards, decreased consumption of fish with a high level of pollutants, and to identify the benefits of fish consumption. Received: 14 July 2016 Accepted: 01 August 2016 Published: 05 August 2016 © 2016 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. Page 1 of 13 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/23311932.2016.1220344&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2016-08-05 mailto:andietam@gmail.com http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Page 2 of 13 Andrew et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2016), 2: 1220344 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2016.1220344 Subjects: Behavioral Sciences; Environment & Health; Environmental Change & Pollution; Epidemiology; Food Additives & Ingredients; Health & Society; Nutrition; Pollution Management; Public Health Policy and Practice; Toxicology Keywords: individual perceptions; vulnerable community; fish consumption; heavy metals; benefits; risks; contamination 1. Introduction Fish consumption has negative and positive consequences in the indigenous population and more specifically in pregnant women, children and adults as documented by Power, Klein, Guiguer, and Kwan (2002). The benefits of fish consumption include reduction of cardiovascular diseases, boost- ing body immunity and provision of proteins (Olmedo et al., 2013). Increased fish consumption is also unfortunately associated with uptake of contaminated fish (Teisl, Fromberg, Smith, Boyle, & Engelberth, 2011). The major risk associated with fish consumption is that of heavy metals uptake especially mercury and lead (Petre, Sackett, & Aday, 2012). To counteract the heavy metal conse- quences, governments worldwide institute fish consumption advisories (Burger & Gochfeld, 2008; Engelberth et al., 2013; Teisl et al., 2011). The fish consumption advisories create awareness about the risks and benefits associated with fish consumption (Burger & Gochfeld, 2008). The message dis- seminated to communities focuses on the direct and indirect effects of the guidelines (Burger, 2000; Carvalho, Matos, Mateus, Santos, & Batoréu, 2008; Mariën & Patrick, 2001; Oken et al., 2012; Wheatley & Wheatley, 2000). The indirect effects include community welfare, attitudes, behavior change, indi- vidual factors, and location. While the direct effects target the consequences, choice of interventions and target group. Regardless of the community: Vulnerable or non-vulnerable, the perceptions linked to fish con- sumption are either individual or communal or both. The individual perceptions are classified into perceived benefits or risks. These individual perceptions either directly or indirectly affect fish con- sumption. The three construct model exhibited by Pieniak, Verbeke, Scholderer, Brunsø, and Ottar Olsen (2008) in five European countries showed that people who eat healthy foods have a high af- finity for fish consumption, those who know about risks of fish consumption decreased feeding. Persons in good health had no correlation with fish consumption. The study pointed out that socio- cultural and individual aspects that affect fish consumption should be considered if the benefits of fish consumption are to be realized. The perceptions which increased fish consumption include age, nutrition and source of informa- tion. Different groups in the USA like pregnant women, women of childbearing age, children less than 16 years of age, elderly and adolescents have different perceptions regarding fish consump- tion. The perception of the elderly was that they obtained more cardiovascular benefits from boiled fish than fried fish. However, the children are a crucial age group for the fishing community since the hazards affect them fivefold as compared to adults (Kuntz, Ricco, Hill, & Anderko, 2010). Regarding nutrition, adolescents from Cameroon depend on the nutrition benefits from fish to appear beautiful and increase the body size of the woman (Bloomingdale et al., 2010; Cohen et al., 2005; Dapi, Omoloko, Janlert, Dahlgren, & Håglin, 2007; Mozaffarian et al., 2003). The perceptions which lead to risks amongst fishing community are vulnerability, message, infor- mation available, frameworks and theories. Vulnerable groups in Africa have nutritional and liveli- hood challenges related to the sales of the fish to developed countries or income diversification to get the much-needed income or even still have transactional sex for fish stock or exchanged sex for fish (Béné & Merten, 2008). Furthermore, consumers who are not vulnerable have perceptions about fish consumption too i.e. undeclared risks of fish consumption, the role of social media, low adoption to new products and individual factors which affect consumption (Béné & Merten, 2008; Geheb et al., 2008; Pieniak, Verbeke, & Scholderer, 2010). D ow nl oa de d by [ 68 .2 34 .1 34 .5 0] a t 0 3: 21 0 4 A ug us t 2 01 7 Page 3 of 13 Andrew et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2016), 2: 1220344 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2016.1220344 Abstract messages stopped women of childbearing age from fish consumption while in the Russian study the message was linked to safety of the products consumed (Barnett et al., 2011; Grunert, 2005; Ruxton, 2011; Ueland et al., 2012; van Dijk, Fischer, Honkanen, & Frewer, 2011; van Kleef et al., 2006; Verbeke, Vanhonacker, Sioen, Van Camp, & De Henauw, 2007). Parents of children and newborns in the USA need information for fish risk to come from health care providers if it is to be trusted (Kuntz et al., 2010). While the students in the Netherlands showed that benefit and risk are related to information availed, the level of the commonness of the fish and psychology of the consumer. This information probably explains the difficulty in behavior change without the right information and frame of mind. The frameworks, models, and theories which have attempted to explain the perceived risks and benefits associated with consumption of foods including fish included two-pronged and attitude frameworks and grounded, miserabilism, economic and value behavior theories (Costa-Font & Mossialos, 2007; Pieniak et al., 2008; Teisl, Fein, & Levy, 2009; Wohl, 1998). The theoretical perspec- tives linked to fish consumption perceptions in Africa, Europe, and the USA spoke openly of poverty amongst the adolescents in Cameroon and the fishing community in East Africa while talking about the lack of purchasing power and behavior changes in Spanish and American consumers (Béné & Merten, 2008; Dapi et al., 2007; Teisl et al., 2009; Tudoran, Olsen, & Dopico, 2009). The theoretical perspectives guiding the current study are the Vygotsky theory which looks at behavior change in the community in light of the information provided, language used and societal discernment of the meaning and the cultural consensus theory which looks at the systematic distribution of information and knowledge in the community (Anders & Batchelder, 2013; Yasnitsky & Ferrari, 2008). Research on individual perceptions about fish consumption is extensively covered between the late nineties and the early twenty first century in Europe and North America with only limited contri- bution from Asia and Africa. In the East African region, there is only one study by Geheb et al. (2008) who concentrated on the linkage between fish exports and malnutrition in the fishing communities. The previous study, however, did not look at the fishing community perceptions on fish consump- tion, a gap the current study is going to address. The study was carried out in the Albertine region Uganda. This area is characterized by man-made sources of lead and mercury include: Oil exploration, poor oil waste management arising from leav- ing behind pools of unutilized crude oil which are washed down stream into the lake and charcoal burning (Hindrum, 2011). Attempts are being made by the Ugandan government to prevent disas- trous effects attributed to lead and mercury in the Lake Albert region. The measures instituted to lower the man-made sources of the two metals in the lake include Environment impact assessment, alternative sources of energy and sensitization (Campbell, Dixon, & Hecky, 2003). Nonetheless, these attempts can only achieve the desired effects in the long term. The available short term measure is to assess and report the hazards present in the common fish consumed and the associated indi- vidual perceptions (Petre et al., 2012). It is vital that the study of individual perceptions about fish consumption in fishing communities be carried out if the benefits of fish consumption are to be harnessed. 2. Methods This perception study stance form is the post positivist paradigm, uses mixed methods and the con- vergent parallel approach (Creswell, 2013). The methods employed are key informant interviews and surveys (Creswell, 2013). Data collection occurred from March to June 2015. 2.1. Study area This perception study was carried out in Lake Albert fishing communities in Uganda. Lake Albert is located in western Uganda and is located 1.52 N; 30.86 E 10 km and is the lake that occupies the most north part of the rift valley (Karp, Scholz, & McGlue, 2012). The study was carried out in Hoima D ow nl oa de d by [ 68 .2 34 .1 34 .5 0] a t 0 3: 21 0 4 A ug us t 2 01 7 Page 4 of 13 Andrew et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2016), 2: 1220344 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2016.1220344 district in the four sub counties of Kyangware, Kabwoya, Buseruka and Kigolobya and these are the only sub counties with access to Lake Albert waters. The corresponding landing sites of Buhuka, Nkondo, Kaiso Tonya and Kibiro respectively. The area is characterized by oil exploration, charcoal burning, fishing, a world center of biodiversity and wildlife heritage site. The highly populated area has some influx immigrants for livelihood. Hoima residents live in abject poverty with less than 2% access to electricity, and the majority depend on subsistence agriculture (Hindrum, 2011). The fish- ing communities are multicultural i.e. have natives from Uganda and Democratic Republic of Congo. This cultural diversity alters or modifies the inherent fishing practices and lifestyles around the fish- ing community. 2.2. Participant selection The key informants were purposively selected based on their level of knowledge about the fish con- sumption and environment and their leadership roles in their respective departments in the study district. These informants apart from the local leadership are all under the production department and this is mandated by law to handle all the district issues on environment related research, com- munity interventions, agricultural production and planning. So these were the persons who will im- plement the findings of the research. Households chosen for the questionnaires administration were those found around Lake Albert fishing community less than or equal to 2 km from the landing site. 2.3. Sample size for the survey The sample size for the cross-sectional household survey was determined by the formula by sample power 3 IBM SPSS software for a population. where n is the sample size of households, Zα is the z value at α = 0.05 level of significance, P is the expected prevalence of the condition in the population under study, Q is 1−P, d is the desired error of the estimate (Thrushfield, 1995). A total of 384 Households is considered sufficient for the study. However, this number was not realized since the households on the four landing sites on Lake Albert were about 500 and this was less than that anticipated therefore a finite factor for the correction New sample size = sample size/1 + (sample size−1/Population) (Thrushfield, 1995) This gave a new sample size of 217 Households. Due to non-responses, an anticipated 20% was factored for the sample size bringing the total households to 260. However, the study collected data from 273 households. These were selected randomly from households around the landing sites. 2.4. Data collection 2.4.1. Qualitative The five key informant interviews elicited data from fisheries, community development, community, environmental and veterinary officers. The tool used for this key informant interview was an un- structured interview guide (Moretti et al., 2011). This provided data on the perceived benefits and risks associated with fish consumption. The key informant interviews took between 45 min to 1 hour and individual consent was sought from each officer before the study commenced. The data was recorded in addition to the notes taken during the interview. 2.4.2. Quantitative The household survey used a structured questionnaire for data collection from households. The in- terviewers were trained in administration of the tool (structured questionnaire). The questionnaires n = z�2 PQ∕d2 D ow nl oa de d by [ 68 .2 34 .1 34 .5 0] a t 0 3: 21 0 4 A ug us t 2 01 7 Page 5 of 13 Andrew et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2016), 2: 1220344 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2016.1220344 were pretested and modified for reliability and then finally administered. A total of 273 question- naires were administered for the study. 2.5. Data analysis The data collection and analysis was separate for each component. Triangulation of the findings occurred at the discussion stage. More weight was placed on the qualitative than quantitative aspect. The qualitative data was transcribed and then word processed. The word processed transcripts were uploaded into QSR Nvivo 10 software and then coded deductively. Thereafter, relationships were established, themes generated and visualized. The quantitative data was exported to SPSS version 20 for Descriptive analysis. This generated summary statistics, tables of results and graphs. Then Chi square analysis was conducted to estab- lish the perceptions associated with fish consumption. The interpretations were made using level of significance α = 0.05 and Confidence intervals of 95%. A general linearized model for the Poisson family was run to establish contribution of the factors to fish consumption. This then was reported using narrative, figures /graphs /tables and levels of association between variables. 2.6. Ethical considerations This research was reviewed and approved by institutional ethical review board of College of Veterinary Medicine, Animal Resources and Biosecurity Makerere University under record number V:AB:REC/15/103. The research was also approved by the Ugandan National Council of Science and Technology under SIR 140 3. Results and discussion 3.1. Quantitative 3.1.1. Demographic characteristics of the respondents The population at Lake Albert was relatively young since of the households studied, the majority were aged between 19–30 years. However, 70% of the respondents were married and the majority had children. Most had minimal education i.e. Primary level of education and none had tertiary edu- cation. The majority of the household heads were males a feature typical of paternalistic families. The distribution of the demographics is displayed in Figure 1. Figure 1. Demographic attributes of respondents in Lake Albert. D ow nl oa de d by [ 68 .2 34 .1 34 .5 0] a t 0 3: 21 0 4 A ug us t 2 01 7 Page 6 of 13 Andrew et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2016), 2: 1220344 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2016.1220344 3.1.2. Fish consumption attributes of the respondents Like in all fishing communities, over 97% agreed that they eat fish. When asked about the benefits associated with eating fish, 90% claimed to know these benefits. The major benefits of eating fish was that it acted as source of food. When the respondents were asked about the trends of fish con- sumption the majority agreed that the fish catches were going down hence less and less fish for consumption. The other attributes associated with fish consumption including the species con- sumed are displayed in Table 1. 3.1.3. Safety, sources of contamination and awareness attributes When the fishing community household heads was asked about the safety of fish eaten, 92% per- ceived no known risk associated with consumption and therefore thought it is safe. The major rea- son behind fish being safe for consumption was that it is always fresh, sweet and has no known drugs. The majority lacked information about contaminants found in fish. The perceived sources of contamination, contaminants available, and safety information is displayed in Table 2. 3.1.4. Relationship between fish consumption and perceived benefits and risks After establishing the demography and frequencies of the respondents, perceived benefits and risks, there was need to establish the factors which are associated to fish consumption. These factors were generated using χ2 analysis and interpretations made at p < 0.05. Out of the many factors, ten were statistically associated with weekly fish consumption. and these are reported in Table 3. Table 1. Perceived benefits about fish consumption Category Attribute Frequency Percentage (%) Sample n Common benefits of fish consumption Food 183 85.1 215 Omega 3 5 2.3 Good for heart 6 2.8 Satisfaction 6 2.8 Fish commonly eaten at landing sites Lates species 48 29.8 161 Tilapia species 73 45.3 Pelagic fish 25 15.5 Trend of fish consumption Increased 5 2.5 198 Decreased 189 95.5 Normal 4 2.0 Table 2. Perceived risks associated with fish consumption Category Attribute Frequency Percentage (%) Sample n Reasons why fish is safe Always good/no problems/fresh/ sweet/no drug/ natural 183 72.9 251 Eaten them for years 17 6.8 Awareness about fish contaminants No 182 76.2 239 Yes 57 23.8 Common contami- nants aware of Chemicals 12 4.4 270 Oil sips 13 4.8 Sources of the contaminants People/Fishermen 20 7.3 273 Oil sips 17 6.2 Lake bed 21 7.7 D ow nl oa de d by [ 68 .2 34 .1 34 .5 0] a t 0 3: 21 0 4 A ug us t 2 01 7 Page 7 of 13 Andrew et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2016), 2: 1220344 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2016.1220344 The family heads understood that the benefits associated with fish consumption included house- hold sizes, awareness, methods of preparation and lack of knowledge about the fish management organizations. 3.1.5. Modeling of the factors related to household weekly fish consumption After the bivariate analysis above, the 10 factors were inserted into general linear model of the Poisson family with frequency of consumption as the dependent variable. This generated output of the five factors associated with weekly frequency but in addition it also generated the direction of the research. The factors which increased weekly frequency of fish consumption were lack of aware- ness about benefits of fish consumption and the number of adults in the family. On the other hand, those factors which decreased weekly fish consumption were method of preparation and lack of awareness about organizations which monitor fishing on the landing sites. The model output was reported in Table 4. Model information Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC) 420.036 Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) 461.751 Consistent AIC (CAIC) 479.751 Large household and lack of awareness about perceived benefits are commonly associated with fish consumption on the landing site and this was witnessed by Barges (2008) when looking at the Canadian situation of fish mercury levels in the local communities. The decrease in consumption was confirmed by the message sent out i.e. should be balanced regarding the benefits and risks as- sociated with fish consumption (Driscoll, Sorensen, & Deerhake, 2012) and contextual (Mansilla- Rivera & Rodríguez-Sierra, 2011). The vulnerable fishing community associated the culinary methods of fish with reduced consumption due to reduced benefits. This was confirmed by Kalogeropoulos et al. (2012) who found out that the method of preparation of fish i.e. frying and grilling instead concentrates the amounts of lead and mercury if present in the fish as compared to boiling. Therefore, the community needs to be sensitized about boiling of fish a method which confers the cardiovascular properties desired from fish as observed by Mozaffarian et al. (2003) in elderly per- sons in the USA. Verbeke et al. (2008) who looked at fish contribution towards health and the de- mand for it across Europe especially Belgian consumers showed the need for a balanced message coupled with both benefits and risks of fish consumption. During the survey, only 2.8% of the re- spondents acknowledge the health benefit, and this shows an information gap. Table 3. Perceived benefits and risks associated with weekly fish consumption Attribute χ2 Degree p-value Education 28.9 2 <0.0001 Awareness about benefits fish consumption 17.3 1 <0.0001 Methods for preparation 37.1 5 <0.0001 Parts consumed by children <5 years 27.4 9 0.001 Parts consumed by children >5 years 24.6 9 0.003 Parts consumed by Adults 67.6 8 <0.0001 Preference as reason for fish consumption 25.4 1 <0.0001 Safety of the fish 32.2 1 <0.0001 Whether they have heard about fish contaminants 13.7 1 <0.0001 Fishing as an income generation activity 7.0 1 0.008 D ow nl oa de d by [ 68 .2 34 .1 34 .5 0] a t 0 3: 21 0 4 A ug us t 2 01 7 Page 8 of 13 Andrew et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2016), 2: 1220344 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2016.1220344 3.2. Qualitative The decreased fish catches have led the households to believe there is a steady decrease in the fish in the lake. This perspective is also held by key informants, “for some years, the fish has reduced because initially, we used to enjoy fish and really you would buy a lot and really enjoy it but today the fish has reduced in terms of species types and also prices have increased”. Further reduction in fish consumption occurs in fishing communities in a presence of a fish consumption advisory. However, the household heads and key informants perceived benefits and risks differently in the fishing community. The key informants perceived benefits relate with quality of life. The most com- monly perceived benefit of fish consumption is nutrition. The perceived nutrition is associated with food (85.1%) and nutrients i.e. omega three (2.3%). Fish is a staple for fisherfolk. One of the key in- formants stated that “ ‘Bagungu’ [tribe] almost they depend on fish as food” and without it a whole group of persons will have lost their lifestyle. So these people relate the eating of fish to life style. These nutrition benefits extend to the wellbeing of the community. This food benefit is explained in the statement, “those who take fish, they are looking better meaning that fish has more good val- ues”. This food benefit is in agreement with Burger and Gochfeld (2009) who looked at the American populations who eat fish regardless of whether it was for subsistence or recreation and noted that the perceived benefits from fish consumption range from nutritional to medicinal. These presumed dietary benefits conferred to the fishing community and recreation group according to Burger (2000) is prey to the fish contaminants from community water sources. Clearly, there is need for evidence- based information to relate these perceived benefits to fish consumed in the community. Growth of infants, “fish for milk the Ngara for especially women who are breast feeding if you want to increase milk when you have delivered, breast feeding, they take that one” and children, “it has some nutrients and that the young children look nice and with ‘muziri’ [sliver fish] the children are able to grow” in the fishing community. Closely tied to the nutrition benefits is the growth which the fishing community was not able to explain. They observed that children who ate fish grew well and appeared healthy. These was confirmed by (Loewe, 2012) in a vulnerable population where growth of children is key for the realization of Sustainable Development Goals of decreased malnutrition and mortalities of children under five. Also, factors that curtail the perceived benefits from fish consump- tion for the infants and children in fishing communities like drinking water sources and hygiene should be part of fish consumption advisory (Ssebisubi, 2013). Next perceived benefit that arises out of fish consumption is that of good health, “fish is really good for our health and really many people benefit out of it” and this cuts across all age categories. This perceived health benefit is responsible for the globalization of fish. Closely associated with health is the perceived medicine role. The community associated fish consumption with the treat- ment i.e. measles, “Mukene the one she was talking about, they were using it for measles” and other medical benefits associated with hastened recovery after delivery in women, “testimony from one lady who has confessed that it helped her recover from those effects, pains in the uterus, back pains, Table 4. Model output for the factors related to household weekly fish consumption Parameter β Std. error 95% Confidence interval p-value Lower Upper (Intercept) 15.232 4.9925 5.447 25.018 0.002 Not aware about benefits 1.571 0.7676 0.066 3.075 0.041 Method of preparation Boiling −9.548 4.0629 −17.511 1.585 0.019 Method of preparation frying −10.733 4.1677 −18.901 −2.564 0.010 Adults seven in the family 7.194 3.0820 1.154 13.235 0.020 Not aware about monitoring organizations −2.961 1.3595 −5.625 −0.290 0.029 D ow nl oa de d by [ 68 .2 34 .1 34 .5 0] a t 0 3: 21 0 4 A ug us t 2 01 7 Page 9 of 13 Andrew et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2016), 2: 1220344 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2016.1220344 so the ngasa”. Unfortunately, it is a fallacy that measles is cured or prevented by consuming fish. Therefore, this misconception needs to be corrected using a fish consumption advisory. As for im- proved recovery after birth, fish provide a lot of essential nutrients which can aid immune boosting, wound healing and recovery a fact endorsed by Burger and Gochfeld (2009). Fish is perceived as income and suitable for all situations where money is required for the transac- tion. The fish resource is in such high demand that the market comes way down to the shore line and even in the waters as stated by the key informant, “there came in a boom of these vehicles moving up to down the wells so they buy the fish in fact when they are still in water”. However, the accrued income gives forth to prostitution, the fish transaction for sex, bars and hotels and then a cycle of poverty typical of the fishing communities (Béné & Merten, 2008; Geheb et al., 2008; Olale & Henson, 2013; Ssebisubi, 2013). Over 95.5% of the respondents acknowledge decreased fish catches in the Lake Albert waters. These dropped catches translate into less income for the fishing community hence the need for revenue diversification. Income-generating skills i.e. trade and other non-fish linked business are key so as to avoid overfishing, “For income, people derive their livelihood on sell- ing fish”(Olale & Henson, 2013). Information on income diversification is vital in a fishing community to sustain the fisheries stock. On the other hand, the increase in fish prices have enabled the fishing community to send the children to school as stated by the key informants, “able to educate the children; some have even been able to buy plots of land” Child education will transform the fishing community through income diversification and development. The education of children in the fish- ery communities is constrained by few schools on the landing sites, long distances to school and inadequate teaching facilities (Ssebisubi, 2013). Lastly, fish consumption is perceived to increase potency or manhood, “the potency of men by taking the other species ‘(omutunta)’ [fish]”and libido in men, “fish which I do not remember but will ask the fisheries man, it increases the libido of men”. Fish species “Omutunta” scientifically Polypterussenegalussenegalus is rare but delicacy for men. No literature was available to explain this perceived benefit hence there is need for an investigation. The studies by Béné and Merten (2008) and Ssebisubi (2013) explain why HIV is rampant amongst the fishing communities in spite of aware- ness and control strategies present in the fishery communities. The personal risks associated with fish consumption included: Stigma and Ill-health. The challenge that stigmatized fish consumption arose from the shape of the fish, number of bones it has, the smell of the fish and resultant effect post consumption of the fish. There is a perception that eel-shaped fish are not suitable for consumption and this include species like the lungfish. The informants who elabo- rate that, “There is some fish which looks like a snake Laughs Mamba/Lung fish”. Promotion of lungfish consumption in spite of the documented benefits would most likely yield poor responses. Therefore, when designing fish consumption advisories, we should ensure that the species included (even if load- ed with mercury and Lead) are in tandem with the fish consumption habits of the community. One of the informants who observed that, “The children that we have produced do not want to eat fish because they are no longer attractive, they are too small” and this behavior is unbearable for fish consumption is a lifestyle. This practice exhibition is partially confirmed by Johnston and Snow (2007) who looked at people’s life styles in the US especially those with fishing permits in Wyoming and realized that fish consumption for children is promoted because of the benefits offered by fish and in this case omega three. Wheatley and Wheatley (2000) also experienced a similar situation when dealing with fishing communities in Brazil and Canada and called for an approach which linked the risk data to social aspects to gain acceptance. The children in the above countries especially the young ones less than five years were not eager to eat due to the small size of the fish. Sometimes, the children also do want to eat fish because of the high bone to flesh ratio. Failure to eat fish in Brazilian communities where access is not the issue as observed by Mitterer-Daltoé, Latorres, Queiroz, Fiszman, and Varela (2013) among the Brazilian population where awareness campaigns were required to promote fish consumption. The community preferred to export the fish and con- sume something else. D ow nl oa de d by [ 68 .2 34 .1 34 .5 0] a t 0 3: 21 0 4 A ug us t 2 01 7 Page 10 of 13 Andrew et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2016), 2: 1220344 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2016.1220344 Fish consumption is associated with ill health i.e. one of the informants reported that, “there are some fish like kasirubana which when eaten you vomit after eating the fish”. Others also added to this situation that, “Somebody eats fish and after a short while gets a running stomach and that is mainly due to poor handling of the fish” The informant made it clear that the group that vomits is the young children. Therefore, other possible causes of ill health like worm infestation and schisto- somiasis (elephantiasis) should be investigated. The prevalence of schistosomiasis (elephantiasis) is high around landing sites and causes nausea (Ssetaala et al., 2012). 4. Conclusion The study took place in a vulnerable fishing community of a developing country and looked at the individual perceptions associated with fish consumption. These individual perceptions were ex- pressed as perceived benefits and risks. The perceived benefits of eating fish in fishing community in third world were: Health, income, manhood and nutrition. These are influenced by household size, awareness about fish management organizations and method of preparation. The perceived risks associated with fish consumption in fishing community were: Stigma and ill health. These are influenced by the message and hazard levels in fish. Based on the above, we recommend: A study to investigate the role of fish consumption in sexual drive for men in fishing community Creation of an awareness campaign about health benefits and fallacies of fish consumption in fishing communities. The knowledge on individual perceptions associated with fish consumption will aid fishing commu- nity’s members increase fish consumption but with less risks in order to harness the desired benefits. 4.1. Limitation and strengths The key strengths of this work is that it is the first of its kind in the region, and will go a long way in informing research around the fishing villages. Being a mixed study, it also reduces on the shortfalls attributed to either qualitative or quantitative study designs. Due to the fact that this study is exe- cuted in a developing country, it will offer insights about the context of vulnerable communities es- pecially fishing communities in aspects of fish consumption. The limitation could be attributed to the use of a structured questionnaire which was standardized for fishing communities in Uganda and not worldwide. Acknowledgements This research was supported by the consortium for Advanced Research Training in Africa. CARTA is jointly led by the African Population and Health Research Center and the University of Witwatersrand. This research was also supported by Water Network of RIISE Carnegie New York. We are thankful for the support from District Production Department of Hoima, Uganda and all its occupants especially residents in the fishing villages where the study was executed. Special recognition goes to CEHA (Conservation through Eco Health Alliance) for the support and community entry. We are indebted to the Research Assistants who worked with us during data collection. Funding This work was funded by the Wellcome Trust (UK) [grant number 087547/Z/08/Z], the Department for International Development (DfID) under the Development Partnerships in Higher Education (DelPHE), the Carnegie Corporation of New York [grant number B 8606], the Ford Foundation [grant number 1100-0399], Google.org [grant number 191994], Sida [grant number 54100029] and MacArthur Foundation: [grant number 10-95915-000-INP]. Competing Interest The authors declare no competing interest. Author details Tamale Andrew1 E-mail: andietam@gmail.com ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9742-1172 Ejobi Francis1 E-mail: ejobifrancis@gmail.com Muyanja Charles2 E-mail: ckmuyanja@gmail.com Irene Naigaga1 D ow nl oa de d by [ 68 .2 34 .1 34 .5 0] a t 0 3: 21 0 4 A ug us t 2 01 7 mailto:andietam@gmail.com http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9742-1172 mailto:ejobifrancis@gmail.com mailto:ckmuyanja@gmail.com Page 11 of 13 Andrew et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2016), 2: 1220344 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2016.1220344 E-mail: i.naigaga@gmail.com Nakavuma Jesca1 E-mail: jesca.nakavuma@gmail.com Ocaido Micheal1 E-mail: mocaido@yahoo.com Katuhoire Anne3 E-mail: annekatahoire@yahoo.co.uk Amulen Deborah4 E-mail: amulendeborah@gmail.com 1 �College of Veterinary Medicine, Animal Resources and Biosecurity, Makerere University, P.O. Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda. 2 �Department of Food Technology and Nutrition, Makerere University, P.O. Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda. 3 �College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, P.O. Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda. 4 �Department of Crop Protection, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. Citation information Cite this article as: Perceptions about mercury and lead in fish consumed in Lake Albert fishing communities Uganda, Tamale Andrew, Ejobi Francis, Muyanja Charles, Irene Naigaga, Nakavuma Jesca, Ocaido Micheal, Katuhoire Anne & Amulen Deborah, Cogent Food & Agriculture (2016), 2: 1220344. References Anders, R., & Batchelder, W. (2013). Cultural consensus theory for the ordinal data case. Psychometrika, 1–31. doi:10.1007/s11336-013-9382-9 Barges, A. (2008). Culture, territories, and confidence in food: An anthropological view on health in the context of environmental pollution and socio-political tension. Appetite, 51, 30–33. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2008.02.003 Barnett, J., McConnon, A., Kennedy, J., Raats, M., Shepherd, R., Verbeke, W., ... Wall, P. (2011). Development of strategies for effective communication of food risks and benefits across Europe: Design and conceptual framework of the FoodRisC project. BMC Public Health, 11, 1–9. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-11-308 Béné, C., & Merten, S. (2008). Women and fish-for-Sex: Transactional sex, HIV/AIDS and gender in African fisheries. World Development, 36, 875–899. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.05.010 Bloomingdale, A., Guthrie, L. B., Price, S., Wright, R. O., Platek, D., Haines, J., & Oken, E. (2010). A qualitative study of fish consumption during pregnancy. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 92, 1234–1240. doi:10.3945/ajcn.2010.30070 Burger, J. (2000). Consumption advisories and compliance: The fishing public and the deamplification of risk. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43, 471–488. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713676577 Burger, J., & Gochfeld, M. (2008). Knowledge about fish consumption advisories: A risk communication failure within a university population. Science of The Total Environment, 390, 346–354. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.10.016 Burger, J., & Gochfeld, M. (2009). Perceptions of the risks and benefits of fish consumption: Individual choices to reduce risk and increase health benefits. Environmental Research, 109, 343–349. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2008.12.002 Campbell, L., Dixon, D. G., & Hecky, R. E. (2003). A review of mercury in Lake Victoria, East Africa: Implications for human and ecosystem health. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B, 6, 325–356. doi:10.1080/10937400306474 Carvalho, C. M. L., Matos, A. I. N. M., Mateus, M. L., Santos, A. P. M., & Batoréu, M. C. C. (2008). High-fish consumption and risk prevention: Assessment of exposure to methylmercury in Portugal. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. Part A, 71, 1279–1288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15287390801989036 Cohen, J. T., Bellinger, D. C., Connor, W. E., Krisetherton, P. M., Lawrence, R. S., Savitz, D. A., ... Gray, G. M. (2005). A quantitative risk-benefit analysis of changes in population fish consumption. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 29, 325–334. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2005.07.003 Costa-Font, J., & Mossialos, E. (2007). Are perceptions of “risks” and “benefits” of genetically modified food (in) dependent? Food Quality and Preference, 18, 173–182. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.09.013 Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Michigan: Sage. Dapi, L. N., Omoloko, C., Janlert, U., Dahlgren, L., & Håglin, L. (2007). “I eat to be happy, to be strong, and to live.” Perceptions of rural and urban adolescents in Cameroon, Africa. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 39, 320–326. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2007.03.001 Driscoll, D., Sorensen, A., & Deerhake, M. (2012). A multidisciplinary approach to promoting healthy subsistence fish consumption in culturally distinct communities. Health Promotion Practice, 13, 245–251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1524839910380156 Engelberth, H., Teisl, M. F., Frohmberg, E., Butts, K., Bell, K. P., Stableford, S., & Smith, A. E. (2013). Can fish consumption advisories do better? Providing benefit and risk information to increase knowledge. Environmental Research, 126, 232–239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2013.08.012 Geheb, K., Kalloch, S., Medard, M., Nyapendi, A.-T., Lwenya, C., & Kyangwa, M. (2008). Nile perch and the hungry of Lake Victoria: Gender, status and food in an East African fishery. Food Policy, 33, 85–98. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2007.06.001 Grunert, K. G. (2005). Food quality and safety: Consumer perception and demand. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 32, 369–391. doi:10.1093/eurrag/jbi011 Hindrum, J. T. R. (2011). Enviromental monitoring programme for the Albertine Graben Uganda. In NINA (Ed.), Results from an ecosystem indicator scoping workshop in Kasese, Uganda, April 2011 (Vol. 706, p. 118). Norsk: Author. Johnston, J. J., & Snow, J. L. (2007). Population-based fish consumption survey and probabilistic methylmercury risk assessment. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 13, 1214–1227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10807030701655764 Kalogeropoulos, N., Karavoltsos, S., Sakellari, A., Avramidou, S., Dassenakis, M., & Scoullos, M. (2012). Heavy metals in raw, fried and grilled Mediterranean finfish and shellfish. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 50, 3702–3708. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2012.07.012 Karp, T., Scholz, C. A., McGlue, M. M. (2012). Structure andstratigraphy of the Lake Albert Rift, East Africa: Observations from seismic reflection and gravity data Lacustrine sandstone reservoirs and hydrocarbon systems (pp. 299–518). New York, NY: Department of Earth Sciences, Syracuse University. Kuntz, S. W., Ricco, J. A., Hill, W. G., & Anderko, L. (2010). Communicating methylmercury risks and fish consumption benefits to vulnerable childbearing populations. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, & Neonatal Nursing, 39, 118–126. doi:10.1111/j.1552-6909.2009.01094.x Loewe, M. (2012). Post 2015: How to reconcile the millennium development goals (MDGs) and the sustainable development goals (SDGs)? German Development Insitute. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment. un.org/getWSDoc.php?id=70 D ow nl oa de d by [ 68 .2 34 .1 34 .5 0] a t 0 3: 21 0 4 A ug us t 2 01 7 mailto:i.naigaga@gmail.com mailto:jesca.nakavuma@gmail.com mailto:mocaido@yahoo.com mailto:annekatahoire@yahoo.co.uk mailto:amulendeborah@gmail.com http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11336-013-9382-9 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2008.02.003 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-308 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.05.010 http://dx.doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.2010.30070 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713676577 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713676577 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.10.016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2008.12.002 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10937400306474 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15287390801989036 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15287390801989036 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2005.07.003 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.09.013 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2007.03.001 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1524839910380156 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1524839910380156 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2013.08.012 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2013.08.012 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2007.06.001 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurrag/jbi011 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10807030701655764 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10807030701655764 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2012.07.012 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2012.07.012 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1552-6909.2009.01094.x https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/getWSDoc.php?id=70 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/getWSDoc.php?id=70 Page 12 of 13 Andrew et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2016), 2: 1220344 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2016.1220344 Mansilla-Rivera, I., & Rodríguez-Sierra, C. J. (2011). Metal levels in fish captured in puerto rico and estimation of risk from fish consumption. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 60, 132–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00244-010-9538-x Mariën, K., & Patrick, G. M. (2001). Exposure analysis of five fish-consuming populations for overexposure to methylmercury. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology, 11, 193–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.jea.7500160 Mitterer-Daltoé, M. L., Latorres, J. M., Queiroz, M. I., Fiszman, S., & Varela, P. (2013). Reasons underlying low fish consumption where availability is not an issue. A case study in Brazil, one of the world’s largest fish producers. Journal of Sensory Studies, 28, 205–216. doi:10.1111/joss.12037 Moretti, F., van Vliet, L., Bensing, J., Deledda, G., Mazzi, M., Rimondini, M., ... Fletcher, I. (2011). A standardized approach to qualitative content analysis of focus group discussions from different countries. Patient Education and Counseling, 82, 420–428. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2011.01.005 Mozaffarian, D., Lemaitre, R. N., Kuller, L. H., Burke, G. L., Tracy, R. P., & Siscovick, D. S. (2003). Cardiac benefits of fish consumption may depend on the type of fish meal consumed: The cardiovascular health study. Circulation, 107, 1372–1377. doi:10.1161/01.cir.0000055315.79177.16 Oken, E., Choi, A. L., Karagas, M. R., Mariën, K., Rheinberger, C. M., Schoeny, R., ... Korrick, S. (2012). Which fish should i eat? Perspectives influencing fish consumption choices. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120, 790–798. http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104500 Olale, E., & Henson, S. (2013). The impact of income diversification among fishing communities in Western Kenya. Food Policy, 43, 90–99. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.08.008 Olmedo, P., Pla, A., Hernández, A. F., Barbier, F., Ayouni, L., & Gil, F. (2013). Determination of toxic elements (mercury, cadmium, lead, tin and arsenic) in fish and shellfish samples. Risk assessment for the consumers. Environment International, 59, 63–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2013.05.005 Petre, S. J., Sackett, D. K., & Aday, D. D. (2012). Do national advisories serve local consumers: an assessment of mercury in economically important North Carolina fish. Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 14, 1410–1416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/c2em30024a Pieniak, Z., Verbeke, W., & Scholderer, J. (2010). Health-related beliefs and consumer knowledge as determinants of fish consumption. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 23, 480–488. doi:10.1111/j.1365-277X.2010.01045.x Pieniak, Z., Verbeke, W., Scholderer, J., Brunsø, K., & Ottar Olsen, S. O. (2008). Impact of consumers' health beliefs, health involvement and risk perception on fish consumption. British Food Journal, 110, 898–915. doi:10.1108/00070700810900602 Power, M., Klein, G. M., Guiguer, K. R. R. A., & Kwan, M. K. H. (2002). Mercury accumulation in the fish community of a sub-Arctic lake in relation to trophic position and carbon sources. Journal of Applied Ecology, 39, 819–830. doi:10.2307/827208 Ruxton, C. H. S. (2011). The benefits of fish consumption. Nutrition Bulletin, 36, 6–19. doi:10.1111/j.1467-3010.2010.01869.x Ssebisubi, M. (2013). The status fishing communities in Buikwe District Uganda (pp. 6–38). In ICEIDA (Ed.). Kampala: ICEIDA. Ssetaala, A., Mpendo, J., Nanvubya, A., Sigirenda, S., Nielsen, L., & Kiwanuka, N. (2012). Are fishing communities another most-at-risk-population? Results of a community-based study along Lake Victoria, Uganda. Retrovirology, 9, 216 p. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1742-4690-9-S2-P216 Teisl, M. F., Fein, S. B., & Levy, A. S. (2009). Information effects on consumer attitudes toward three food technologies: Organic production, biotechnology, and irradiation. Food Quality and Preference, 20, 586–596. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.07.001 Teisl, M. F., Fromberg, E., Smith, A. E., Boyle, K. J., & Engelberth, H. M. (2011). Awake at the switch: Improving fish consumption advisories for at-risk women. Science of The Total Environment, 409, 3257–3266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.05.006 Thrushfield, M. (1995). Veterinary epidemiology (2nd ed.). Paris: Black well science. Tudoran, A., Olsen, S. O., & Dopico, D. C. (2009). The effect of health benefit information on consumers health value, attitudes and intentions. Appetite, 52, 568–579. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2009.01.009 Ueland, Ø., Gunnlaugsdottir, H., Holm, F., Kalogeras, N., Leino, O., Luteijn, J. M., ... Verhagen, H. (2012). State of the art in benefit–risk analysis: Consumer perception. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 50, 67–76. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2011.06.006 van Dijk, H., Fischer, A. R. H., Honkanen, P., & Frewer, L. J. (2011). Perceptions of health risks and benefits associated with fish consumption among Russian consumers. Appetite, 56, 227–234. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2010.12.008 van Kleef, E., Frewer, L. J., Chryssochoidis, G. M., Houghton, J. R., Korzen-Bohr, S., Krystallis, T., ... Rowe, G. (2006). Perceptions of food risk management among key stakeholders: Results from a cross-European study. Appetite, 47, 46–63. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2006.02.002 Verbeke, W., Vanhonacker, F., Frewer, L. J., Sioen, I., Henauw, S. d., & Camp, J. v. (2008). Communicating risks and benefits from fish consumption: impact on Belgian consumers’ perception and intention to eat fish. Risk Analysis, 28, 951–967. Verbeke, W., Vanhonacker, F., Sioen, I., Van Camp, J., & De Henauw, S. (2007). Perceived importance of sustainability and ethics related to fish: A consumer behavior perspective. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 36, 580–585. doi:10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[580:PIOSAE]2.0.CO;2 Wheatley, B., & Wheatley, M. A. (2000). Methylmercury and the health of indigenous peoples: a risk management challenge for physical and social sciences and for public health policy. Science of The Total Environment, 259, 23–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-9697(00)00546-5 Wohl, J. B. (1998). Consumers’ decision-making and risk perceptions regarding foods produced with biotechnology. Journal of Consumer Policy, 21, 387–404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1006904622571 Yasnitsky, A., & Ferrari, M. (2008). From Vygotsky to Vygotskian psychology: Introduction to the history of the Kharkov School. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 44, 119–145. doi:10.1002/jhbs.20303 D ow nl oa de d by [ 68 .2 34 .1 34 .5 0] a t 0 3: 21 0 4 A ug us t 2 01 7 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00244-010-9538-x http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00244-010-9538-x http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.jea.7500160 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.jea.7500160 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joss.12037 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2011.01.005 http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.0000055315.79177.16 http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104500 http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104500 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.08.008 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2013.05.005 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2013.05.005 http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/c2em30024a http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/c2em30024a http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-277X.2010.01045.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700810900602 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/827208 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-3010.2010.01869.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1742-4690-9-S2-P216 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1742-4690-9-S2-P216 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.07.001 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.05.006 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.05.006 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2009.01.009 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2011.06.006 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2010.12.008 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2006.02.002 http://dx.doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[580:PIOSAE]2.0.CO;2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-9697(00)00546-5 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-9697(00)00546-5 http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1006904622571 http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1006904622571 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jhbs.20303 Page 13 of 13 Andrew et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2016), 2: 1220344 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2016.1220344 © 2016 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. No additional restrictions You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. Cogent Food & Agriculture (ISSN: 2331-1932) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group. Publishing with Cogent OA ensures: • Immediate, universal access to your article on publication • High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online • Download and citation statistics for your article • Rapid online publication • Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards • Retention of full copyright of your article • Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article • Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com D ow nl oa de d by [ 68 .2 34 .1 34 .5 0] a t 0 3: 21 0 4 A ug us t 2 01 7 Abstract:  1. Introduction 2. Methods 2.1. Study area 2.2. Participant selection 2.3. Sample size for the survey 2.4. Data collection 2.4.1. Qualitative 2.4.2. Quantitative 2.5. Data analysis 2.6. Ethical considerations 3. Results and discussion 3.1. Quantitative 3.1.1. Demographic characteristics of the respondents 3.1.2. Fish consumption attributes of the respondents 3.1.3. Safety, sources of contamination and awareness attributes 3.1.4. Relationship between fish consumption and perceived benefits and risks 3.1.5. Modeling of the factors related to household weekly fish consumption 3.2. Qualitative 4. Conclusion 4.1. Limitation and strengths Acknowledgements References