Dinner on the Line

The Chesapeake Bay is a world-renowned fishing destination. Those who fish the Bay and its tributaries represent many different fishing communities—large and small, recreational and commercial, locals and tourists. But one fishing community can be disproportionately affected by contaminants in the Bay: the subsistence fishers who rely on their catch as a staple food source.

Subsistence fishers vary in their favorite fish, locations, and gear. Some have been fishing since childhood; others picked up fishing during the pandemic. Unlike those who fish for sport and practice catch-and-release, one thing unites subsistence fishers: they eat what they catch. Harvesting and cooking their own fish can save on grocery bills and add lean protein and healthy omega-3 fatty acids to the dinner table.

But depending on where they’re fishing, they may also be at a higher risk of consuming contaminants like the group of chemicals called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). These manufactured compounds, many of which are known to negatively impact human health, don’t break down naturally in the environment.

The chemical structure of PFAS causes these compounds to accumulate in blood and liver cells. As larger fish eat smaller fish and insects, those PFAS build up in the larger fish—a process called bioaccumulation. Similar to bioaccumulation in the aquatic food chain, PFAS can accumulate in people who eat fish.

Scientists from the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) monitor the Bay’s rivers and streams each year, collecting fish across different regions and water bodies and testing them for contaminants that are linked to human health risks. When the fish they test contain certain levels of a contaminant, MDE creates a fish consumption advisory.

In December 2023, MDE released  fish consumption advisories for  elevated levels of PFAS in 15 fish species for specific Maryland water bodies, including the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers.

These advisories provide health guidelines about what types of recreationally caught fish, from which water bodies, should be eaten in limited quantities. The guidelines include how often groups with specialized concerns can safely consume fish from certain areas to avoid health risks. Alongside groups like women and children, MDE also considers subsistence fishers to be a vulnerable population, due to more frequent fish intake.

Research about how PFAS affect underserved communities has been scarce until recent years—and research focused on how these contaminants affect subsistence fishers even more so.

“Many programs, while they provide important environmental data, don’t connect the risks of environmental impact to human health,” Sacoby Wilson, one of the lead researchers on a  project about Anacostia River contamination , told the University of Maryland’s Sustainable UMD magazine. “We want to understand the health risks and get data to be implemented into policies.”

Legacy contamination sites in the Anacostia River watershed have infused the river with fecal microbes, PCBs, metals, pesticides, and other contaminants. To better understand how these contaminants might be affecting subsistence fishers, a study led by Wilson and the University of Maryland Center for Community Engagement, Environmental Justice, and Health surveyed Anacostia anglers about their fishing habits, tested their blood for contaminants, and analyzed fish and water samples for contaminants.

Learning about subsistence fishing patterns and motivations is an important piece of the contaminant puzzle. Another project in 2015-2016 led by the National Park Service found that Anacostia and Potomac River fishers primarily fished to get outside, relax, and enjoy camaraderie with other anglers. This research also indicated that about 40% of the anglers surveyed experienced some form of food insecurity, and many anglers shared their catch with family, friends, or even strangers at the park who ask to keep the fish that anglers would have thrown back otherwise.

Connecting risks also means taking into account exposure pathways that affect some people more than others. People of color and low-income communities tend to have higher levels of PFAS in their drinking water, according to research conducted by Harvard University PhD Candidate Jahred Liddie. In  a study examining  community water sources in 18 states, Liddie and his fellow researchers linked elevated PFAS levels in Hispanic and Black communities to sources of PFAS pollution, like airports, landfills, manufacturing plants, military bases, and wastewater treatment plants, near watersheds that serve these communities.

Of course, fishers from these areas may also be eating their catch—especially those who rely on fishing as a mainstay of protein in their diet. While fish aren't the only source of PFAS, the PFAS in fish can further elevate their exposure levels. Among the subsistence fishers surveyed by the National Park Service along the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers, 57% of anglers were African American and 13% were Hispanic.

Fish consumption advisories are a science-grounded first step towards informing communities about potential health risks, but Gunpowder Riverkeeper Executive Director Theaux Le Gardeur says these advisories can be difficult to find and interpret. For example, the advisories are based on a meal size of 8 ounces of fish—and many seafood meals in homes and restaurants are larger than that.

Another difficulty in communicating about risk of PFAS contamination is that fishers’ location and species preferences combine with environmental factors, like drinking water sources, to pose different levels of risk to different individuals and communities. Improving communication about PFAS risk for specific groups with higher PFAS exposure, like subsistence fishers, can help them avoid health risks from overexposure.

Now that the Maryland Department of the Environment has begun to issue PFAS advisories via their website, stakeholders suggest a more targeted approach to informing affected anglers. Le Gardeur would like to see signage related to PFAS health risks posted at popular fishing spots, like signs he’s seen for other contaminants posted near affected waterways. That way, any risks are communicated directly and effectively at the source.

Outside the Chesapeake Bay region, Susan Buchanan, a clinical associate professor of environmental and occupational health sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health, gained a deeper appreciation for community-specific risk messages while working with Asian communities in Chicago at higher risk for mercury exposure from fish.

As part of that project, she worked with community leaders to design tote bags and wall calendars—giveaway items favored by the communities she hoped to reach—that centered around fish art and risk levels for certain types of fish. The calendars included art and healthy fish recipes that were chosen based on community input.

“Who in the family makes the decisions about what the family eats? What are the economic constraints of choosing certain foods over others?” Buchanan says. “If you deliver the message to somebody who doesn't have self-efficacy, who is not the one shopping for the fish, or who can't afford the healthy fish, you can do all of the messaging you want, and you're not likely to get behavior change.”

Buchanan is applying the lessons she learned about the cultural importance of fish to her current work funded by Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant. Her new project will survey two fishing communities in Benton Harbor, Michigan, and Chicago, Illinois, about their fishing habits and understanding of PFAS risks. Michigan Sea Grant will develop community-specific products to communicate risk based on the project’s results.

Buchanan is prepared for the possibility that some communities with higher health risks from consuming PFAS in fish may not prioritize that risk in the same way Buchanan and her team do.

For Wayne Hankins, a Chicago fisherman who’s working with Buchanan and her team to survey anglers on Chicago’s south side, the benefits of fishing outweigh the potential risks from PFAS. Hankins grew up fishing with his father, and now spends much of his time outside of work near the water. When he’s not fishing for salmon in Lake Michigan, he’s organizing fishing tournaments and documenting Chicago’s fishing community on his YouTube channel, where he hopes to inspire more people to take up fishing.

“Fishing truly saved my life and kept me out of trouble as a kid,” Hankins says. “It’s like a brotherhood. We’ve got a lot of veterans that fish and suffer from PTSD and mental issues. Fishing keeps the guys together, talking to people they relate to, and it’s more than fishing.”

For those fortunate outings when the fish are biting, improved communication around PFAS in fish can help anglers to make an informed choice. Will the fish tugging at the line go into the cooler or back into the Bay? PFAS add another factor to the decision, but the question remains the same.