Analyze

CIEL's report is the first I have encountered to attempt to give a comprehensive analysis of Formosa Plastics and its impact on communities. The report breaks down the corporation's story into several sections: its origins and convoluted corporate structure, its primary products and common health risks of production, documented legal violations, and environmental justice threats. Together, the 100-page document covers significant ground, yet is readable in under an hour. It includes key statistics that are understandable without extensive background. I believe this report, as a mode of communication, finds an outstanding balance between accessible language, analysis, brevity, and detail. Activists and researchers alike should strive for the same qualities in their knowledge-sharing strategies.

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?

I published this news article about a hunger strike against Formosa Plastics that occurred in Texas this fall. Despite the extremity of a 30-day hunger strike, the protesting tactic has not gained attention from national media outlets. At the time I published this article, two small environmental organizations had announced the beginning of the strike, but none continued to cover the event in the unfolding weeks. While activists are driven to take on dangerous protest tactics, little communication of these tactics has carried across mass media.

The article itself introduces Formosa Plastics through its reputation as a "serial offender" of environmental and workplace safety regulations. I list several statistics on legal fines that Formosa Plastics has accumulated overtime, using these quantities to demonstrate the scale of their harm to environmental and human health. An important limitation of this storytelling strategy, however, is that many of Formosa Plastics' actions go undocumented, and even when documented, do not lead to legal consequences. Furthermore, we should still strive to acknowledge the harms committed by Formosa Plastics that are technically within legal limits.

From discussions of how to best document virtual strikers, organizers concluded participants should submit images of themselves holding signs of their commitment to fasting for a day with Diane Wilson. The series of images, showing many people from different countries, could create a sense of solidarity despite physical distance. In addition, images can serve as a tool against FPG demonstrating that many people disapprove of the corporation's actions, despite not being present at the in-person rally. Can images, however, form the same level of solidarity or connection that an in-person interaction otherwise would?

During my thesis project, Tim has served as a collaborator and mentor while he studied data use among activists opposing Formosa Plastics Group (FPG). In addition to connecting me with activists and interview candidates, he also introduced me to a small network of American and Taiwanese students in Taiwan and the United States studying FPG. This community can share resources and knowledge to further our individual studies. Could this academic network serve as a parallel to the transnational activist alliances I am studying? Are the strengths and barriers of research alliances reminiscent of the strengths and barriers of activist alliances?

Linking messages of community pride with political opposition to intrusion by petrochemical companies has interesting implications for collaborations across communities. Does this message enable partnerships in other regions and nations, and what is its relationship to the not-in-my-backyard/NIMBY mentality? How may it be interpreted in differing cultural and language contexts? 

Most recent news (As of September 2022) focuses on the EPAs naming of 23 EtO sterilization plants as high risk. This announcement enables local leadership, environmental organizations and legal partners to assess human health risks while focusing on reducing EtO emissions, as outlined by the EPA. Most recent news (As of September 2022) focuses on the EPAs naming of 23 EtO sterilization plants as high risk. This announcement has enabled local leadership, environmental organizations and legal partners to assess human health risks while focusing on reducing EtO emissions, as outlined by the EPA. This release by the EPA has prompted activism in the communities affected by EtO sterilization facilities. As noted by EarthJustice on the news, “Raul Garcia, legislative director for Healthy Communities at Earthjustice: ‘This is an important and welcome step to increasing transparency on the toxic air pollution and health threats that sterilizer facilities pose to the health of millions of Americans. Now that EPA has new information on precisely where the worst health threats are, the agency must use its full authority to ensure public health so no one gets cancer from this pollution and require fenceline monitoring at these facilities. Now, EPA must issue a strong new rule that phases out the use of ethylene oxide at commercial sterilizers. No one should get cancer from facilities that are used to sterilize equipment in the treatment of cancer.’ “. In addition, one major article edited and published by ProPublica sparked both outrage but in addition, change. The article The Most Detailed Map of Cancer-Causing Industrial Air Pollution in the U.S. details 

Activism has prompted more indepth research, increased acquisition and availability of EtO industry data, and increased focus on EtO as a carcinogen and toxin. This hazard was recognized fully by the EPA between 2016-2018 which led to increased assessment and acknowledgement of EtO as a toxin.

The main concern with EtO exposure includes inhalation. Laws that regulate air emissions have invariably affected and regulated this hazard. But specifically, below is a rough outline of  laws that directly impacted the air emissions of facilities processing EtO: 

• Clean Air Act Section 112, Hazardous Air Pollutants. The CAA regulates Ethylene Oxide under section 112 of the CAA. The CAA labels EtO as a hazardous air pollutant. Under the CAA, EtO emissions can be regulated in conjunction with promoting the best emission controls.

• Regulations on Sterilization Facilities (From Federal Register : National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Ethylene Oxide Commercial Sterilization and Fumigation Operations) 

Note, fugitive emissions have not been standardized by the EPA, including back vents, emergency ventilation etc.

Mainly stark contrast can be found between the EPA and various state and chemical manufacturing companies in terms of data divergence. The main concern surrounding EtO is the elevated cancer risk that occurs with long exposure both direct and indirect. The ways in which the EPA and other companies and agencies assess risk have been different in terms of unit quantity. The EPA utilized in 2016 the Integrated Risk Information System to model cancer risk. According to the American Chemical Council the, “ACC believes the value is significantly flawed.” Also, the Texas Commision on Environmental Quality has stated, “ ‘the US EPA unit risk factor (URF) for ethylene oxide is not scientifically justified.’ ”. This has led the TCEQ to raise its exposure limit from 1 ppb to 2.4 ppb.