Introduction
As wild fisheries decline and world population grows, breeding, rearing, and harvesting species in salt- or fresh-water environments—known as aquaculture—will continue to provide the majority of the finfish and shellfish consumed globally [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2016]. Scientific and technological advances over the past three decades stand to make global aquaculture production increasingly environmentally sustainable and economically viable: a source of local employment and affordable protein [e.g., Ross et al. (2013)]. beamintro
Yet, a legacy of
environmental and human health concerns, and controversy surrounding siting
operations and the use of genetically modified (GM) fish species suggest that
perceived risks of aquaculture—for U.S. audiences, in particular—may loom large
(Schlag, 2011; Kaptan et al., 2016). For example, just over a decade ago, a
handful of highly publicized studies drew global attention to purportedly toxic
levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in farmed Atlantic salmon, prompting
debate in the news media and beyond about the interpretation of the scientific
data, and the implications for human consumption (Hites et al., 2004;
Senkowsky, 2004; Amberg and Hall, 2010). More recently, attention has focused
on AquAdvantage, the first GM salmon to be raised in aquaculture
operations—and, more critically, the first GM animal to be approved by the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for human consumption (Waltz, 2016).
As has been the case with other products emerging from new “agri-food technologies” (Frewer et al., 2011), as GM salmon swims toward the supermarket shelves, consumer concern about product safety, as well as the potential for misinformation, may proliferate, posing implications for the future of the industry (Gurău and Ranchhod, 2016). To date, however, little is known about how Americans perceive aquaculture products, whether GM salmon or rope-grown mussels, or aquaculture practices, whether in land-based tanks or in offshore ocean pens, and how these perceptions might inform related behaviors, such as purchasing decisions or policy support (Chu et al., 2010; Hall and Amberg, 2013). In the absence of these data, a news media content analysis can provide a critical first step toward gauging the conditions for public opinion formation. gaintrennds
The present study takes this step, examining U.S. news media
coverage of aquaculture over a 10-year period (2005–2015). Given aquaculture’s
status as an increasingly critical food “technology” in the U.S., we apply
Luhmann’s (1989) foundational theory of social function systems, as well as
more recent application of this theory to the concept of environmental
sustainability (Valentinov, 2014). Luhmann’s social function systems are the
broad-based systems within society that are used to respond to broad-based
environmental issues such as climate change or pollution. These systems
include, but are not limited to, those connected to sustainability such as
science, economics, policy, and law. Through discussions within and between
these systems, society is able to act upon an environmental issue or the
development of a technology—such as the growing U.S. aquaculture industry and
its implications for human and environmental health and safety. To account for
differences in aquaculture development and practices across the country, we
compare four regional news outlets and four national newspapers for discussion
of aquaculture-related: risks and benefits; scientific, political/legal, and
economic systems; and environmental sustainability. We examine both prominence and
co-occurrence of these themes. Our results both confirm media analysis findings
in other (e.g., European) contexts, and raise important questions for future
research.
Literature Review
Background: Aquaculture in the U.S. marketing2businessdirectory
Presently, over 90% of the seafood Americans consume
originates outsides of the U.S., and about half of those products—including
finfish (e.g., salmon), shellfish (e.g., oysters), and other species (e.g.,
seaweed), are farmed in salt or fresh water [National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), 2016]. Production methods vary considerably, from
surface ocean pens, to land-locked ponds, to underwater ocean cages, as do
inputs necessary to cultivate the species to harvest stage [National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2016]. Advances in aquaculture science have
led researchers to conclude that certain finfish species can be cultivated more
efficiently than terrestrial species (e.g., chicken), with fewer related
greenhouse gas emissions (Naylor et al., 2009; Torrissen et al., 2011).
Moreover, some aquaculture production requires little to no input besides clean
water (e.g., seaweed) and can contribute to ecological restoration in damaged
habitats (e.g., oysters) (Naylor et al., 2009; Beck et al., 2011). Proponents
also suggest that aquaculture can promote economic development internationally
and domestically (Diana, 2009) and can be regulated under a sustainable
certification system (Bush et al., 2013). More recently, food enthusiasts have
increasingly sought out “boutique” aquaculture products, such as regional
varieties of Eastern oysters (Crassostrea virginica) (Kandarian, 2015), or less
commonly known seaweeds, like dulse (Palmaria palmata) (Pols, 2015), fueling
the “local” food movement. Raised in ocean plots in the Northeast and Pacific
Northwest, seaweed has gained recent acclaim in some food marketing circles as
the next “superfood”—a designation that recognizes its nutritional qualities
and potential to become a trendy additive in food products, from popcorn to
pastries (Sneddon, 2015; Tarver, 2015). cosmetics48
Despite these benefits, aquaculture is not without its
critics, and a lingering legacy of environmental and human health concern has
sparked controversy in past decades. Intensive operations of ocean-penned
salmon in the 1980s and 1990s (including in the U.S.) led to highly publicized
environmental concerns of effluent runoff, debilitating fish disease, such as
sea lice, and high levels of chemical pesticides (Diana, 2009; Schlag, 2010,
2011). Critics have also questioned the sustainability of using small fish to
feed larger, carnivorous species, raised animal welfare concerns, and pointed
to problems with raising GM species in open-ocean cages (Diana, 2009; Duarte et
al., 2009). From a human health perspective, researchers have warned of
negative health risks associated with consuming chemically contaminated farmed
fish (Hites et al., 2004). In recent years, environmental and esthetic concerns
have also generated public debate regarding aquaculture siting in the U.S. at
local and federal levels (Eilperin, 2005), and contaminated seafood has drawn
attention to inadequate environmental oversight in aquaculture operations
abroad (Ahrens, 2007).
Public Perception of Aquaculture
Given these apparent benefits and drawbacks, what might U.S.
consumers think of farmed seafood? To date, research on perceptions of
aquaculture among American consumers is sparse (Chu et al., 2010; Hall and
Amberg, 2013), with even less known about opinions toward emerging consumer
products gaining mainstream popularity, such as seaweed (Chapman et al., 2015).
Whereas growing terrestrial plants—such as grains, fruits, and vegetables—is
familiar to most Americans, cultivating seafood—including finfish, shellfish,
and seaweed—may be less so (Hall and Amberg, 2013). Even less widely known,
perhaps, are the various benefits aquaculture can pose, including the promotion
of food security and sustainable fisheries. Recent public opinion studies
suggest that European consumers know little about the process of aquaculture,
or the ubiquity of aquaculture products in the marketplace (Vanhonacker et al.,
2011; Freeman et al., 2012; Schlag and Ystgaard, 2013). In the absence of
information, many consumers infer environmental concerns associated with
traditional terrestrial agriculture, including water pollution or excessive
pesticide use (Whitmarsh and Palmieri, 2011; Freeman et al., 2012; Schlag and
Ystgaard, 2013; Feucht and Zander, 2015), and trust in various government and
scientific agencies to manage the risk becomes paramount (Luoma and Löfstedt,
2007; Frewer et al., 2011). Idealized as “natural,” wild-caught fish tend to be
perceived as superior in taste and quality to farmed fish, but also, in some
cases, as prohibitively expensive (Hall and Amberg, 2013; Schlag and Ystgaard,
2013; Carlucci et al., 2015). Moreover, the increasing use of genetic
modification in many forms of aquaculture, such as to create a faster-growing
salmon or a triploid (sterile) oyster, can prompt the type of “dread” risk
perceptions among public audiences—that is, elevated concern associated with
perceived attributes of the hazard, such as lack of control or inequitable
distribution of risks and benefits (Slovic, 1987)—associated with other GM
foods [e.g., Frewer et al. (2002), Schlag (2011), Fabiansson and Fabiansson
(2016), Kaptan et al. (2016)]. In some regions, stakeholders have challenged
the siting of aquaculture operations for disrupting “lived experience,”
including access to coastal recreational areas, commercial fishing grounds, or
the esthetic qualities of a place (e.g., scenic views) (D’Anna and Murray,
2015; Murray and D’Anna, 2015). At the same time, however, individuals may
recognize the benefits posed by aquaculture, such as the provision of local
jobs, or the creation of affordable protein (Mazur and Curtis, 2006; Schlag and
Ystgaard, 2013; D’Anna and Murray, 2015).
As domestic aquaculture expands on U.S. land and in American
waters, knowing what publics think—in order to design strategic risk
communication, and foster support for public policy—will be increasingly
critical to the industry and government sectors alike. While not a direct
measure of public opinion, a news media content analysis is an important tool
for understanding the climate for public opinion formation around a scientific
issue, as we detail below.