Analyze

Given the vastness of Formosa Plastics' influence, there are many ways to tell its story to the world. As environmental justice activists and researchers, how do we describe a company and its negative impact when there is so much to say? Limited by time, word count, and the audience's attention span, we must decide what goes unsaid. As a result, we could write countless answers to the same question, "What is Formosa Plastics?"

In this published academic case study, I introduce Formosa Plastics through a local lens--specifically, through the eyes of a grandmother-turned-activist in the small town of Welcome, Louisiana. Her family's history with social justice activism, as well as the area's connection to centuries of slavery, make the environmental racism of Formosa Plastics' Sunshine Project especially salient. Although Formosa Plastics is a global force, telling its story on the microscale is an equally important perspective. After all, in Sharon Lavigne's eyes, her small town is her world. How many of these little worlds have Formosa Plastics destroyed as they wreak havoc across international borders?

Studie provides visual representations of lead concentration in Santa Ana cross matching it with vulnerability risk.

“Also of note when interpreting our results is that this study did not take into consideration the ingestion of heavy metals through the dietary route. Had we considered this additional exposure pathway, our calculated chronic daily intake levels of heavy metals would have been greater, resulting in higher estimated risk (particularly for metals such as Pb, As, and Cd which have been widely documented in various foods)” (Marsi et al. 2021)

“Both cancer and non-cancer risk at the Census tract level exhibited positive correlations with indicators of social as well as physiological vulnerability” (Marsi et al. 2021)

Exposure to heavy metals has been associated with adverse health effects and disproportionately impacts communities of a lower socio-economic status.  

This study used a community-based participatory research approach to collect and analyze a large number of randomly sampled soil measurements to yield a high spatially resolved understanding of the distribution of heavy metals in the Santa Ana soil, in an effort to exposure misclassification. This study looks into average metal  concentrations at the Census tract level and by land use type, which helps map potential sources of heavy metals in the soil and better understand the association between socioeconomic status and soil contamination (Marsi et al. 2021). 

In 2018, soil samples of eight heavy metals including lead (Pb), arsenic (As), manganese (Mn), chromium (Cr), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), cadmium (Cd), and zinc (Zn) were collected across Santa Ana. These were analyzed at a high resolution using XRF analysis. Then, metal concentrations were mapped out and American Community Survey data was used to assess the metals throughout Census tracts in terms of social and economic variables. Risk assessment was conducted to evaluate carcinogenic risk. The results of the concentrations of soil metals were categorized according to land-use type and socioeconomic factors. “Census tracts where the median household income was under $50 000 had 90%, 92.9%, 56.6%, and 54.3% higher Pb, Zn, Cd, and As concentrations compared to high-income counterparts” (Marsi et al. 2021). All Census tracts in Santa were above hazard inder >1, which implies non-carcinogenic effects, and almost all Census tracts showed a cancer risk above 104, which implies greater than acceptable risk. Risk was found to be driven by childhood exposure.

It was concluded that the issue of elevated soil contamination relates back to environmental justice due to overlap between contaminated areas and neighborhoods of lower socioeconomic status. Marsi et al. (2021) found there needs to be more community-driven recommendations for policies and other actions to address disproportionate solid contamination and prevent adverse health outcomes.      

Published in May 2021, amid the coronavirus pandemic where in-person community workshops and meetings turned into weekly virtual meetings. 

-> Authors:

Shahir Masri: Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Program in Public Health, University of California, Irvine; air pollution scientist.

Alana M. W. LeBrón: Department of Health, Society, and Behavior, University of California, Irvine; Assistant Professor, Chicano/Latino Studies; Interests: structural racism and health, health of Latina/o communities, community-based participatory research.

Michael D. Logue: Department of Chicano/Latino Studies, University of California, Irvine

Enrique Valencia: Orange County Environmental Justice, Santa Ana

Abel Ruiz: Jóvenes Cultivando Cambios, Santa Ana; CRECE Urban Farming Cooperative member

Abigail Reyes: Community Resilience, University of California, Irvine

Jun Wu: Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Program in Public Health, University of California, Irvine

Drawing on a long career as a Black critical health equity researcher, Bowleg quotes Black feminist Audre Lorde in arguing that the “master’s tools”—in order words, conventional theories and methods—"will never dismantle the master’s house”—intersectional structures of oppression from which health inequities are produced. Bowleg elaborates by explaining that conventional theories and methods “valorize almost exclusively individualistic and social cognitive approaches (Cochran & Mays, 1993; Weber & Parra-Medina, 2003); ignore the foundational roots of structural and intersectional inequality (Bowleg, 2012, 2020); center White, Western, cisgender male, middle-class, and heterosexual people and their experiences as normative (Henrich et al., 2010); prioritize amelioration, not transformation (Fox et al., 2009a); and view Black people primarily through the lens of deficit or pathology” (237).

Thus Bowleg offers 10 critical lessons for Black and other health equity researchers of color that she links with system and structural-level strategies. Bowleg also cautions that these lessons are risky and could damage one’s academic career—but that it is exactly this kind of risk that is necessary for change. Among these include: embrace critical perspectives, embrace a critical qualitative stance, learn research paradigms (e.g. positivist paradigm = a master’s tool, must learn to counter), foster community-based partnerships and collaborations, and highlight black communities’ strengths, assets, and acts of resistance. Bowledge also encourages researchers to “tell it like it is”: “Epistemological ignorance is one of the master’s most formidable tools. Epistemologies of ignorance refer to the examination of different types of ignorance and their production, maintenance, and functions (Sullivan & Tuana, 2007)” (239). Here, Bowleg emphasizes the importance of language by discussing how it can alternatively reveal or obscure structures of oppression as well as it shapes the nature of research.