Category: Beacon

Introduction

From Flint Michigan’s contaminated water supply to Cancer Alley in southern Louisiana, communities of color and low-income communities are disproportionately affected by environmental pollution. Now, after decades of disinvestment, the Biden-Harris Administration has made Environmental Justice (“EJ”) a priority.

Spurred by the Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to inclusivity, economic security, and climate resilience, 2023 brings historic federal funding in the fight against climate inequities. After decades of disinvestment, communities burdened by pollution and racist practices will receive this funding.

President Biden’s Justice40 Initiative[1] ignites the allocation of 40% of the overall benefits from federal investments to disadvantaged communities. Recent federal investments falling under the Initiative’s guidance include the 2021 bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (“IIJA”)[2] and the Inflation Reduction Act (“IRA”) of 2022.[3] The IIJA invests in EJ communities by increasing access to clean drinking water; remediating legacy pollution; expanding access to public transit; and modernizing infrastructure.[4] Similarly, the IRA mirrors language from the Justice40 Initiative while building on investment programs from the IIJA. With nearly $369 billion in clean energy and climate tax credits, the IRA designates $3 billion in EJ  block grants.[5]

On February 23, 2023, the Biden Administration announced $550 million in EJ grants in accordance with the IRA. Designed to expedite investments through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”)’s new Environmental Justice Thriving Communities Grantmaking (“EJ TCGM”) program, this funding will advance efficiency and simplify the application process for EJ grants. However, with funding allocated and Republicans in control of the House, the year ahead is a crucial moment for EJ communities.

How this money is distributed presents a momentous task of ensuring investments reach communities most in need. Misuse of the funding, specifically allocation to organizations that do not need financial assistance, risks hurting EJ communities. Because local and state governments ultimately control how the money they receive gets used, agency oversight is paramount.

Where to Watch: Texas & Louisiana

Texas:

With a history of locating hazardous waste facilities, industrial plants, and other polluting industries in low-income communities and communities of color, Texas is rife with environmental injustices. Carbon capture and storage, highway expansions and increased natural gas exports all threaten EJ communities within the Lonestar state. Further, the current controversy surrounding illegal dumping in Houston highlights the ongoing injustices minority Texans face.

Vulnerable Texans disproportionately face pollution. For instance, minority neighborhoods in Houston are burdened with waste facilities.[6]. Home to “all five city-owned landfills,” six out of eight incinerators, and three out of four privately-owned landfills, these neighborhoods bear the brunt of the city’s pollution.[7] Additionally, from the 1930s until 1978, a staggering 82% of solid waste disposed of in Houston was dumped in predominantly African American neighborhoods, despite African American residents comprising only 25% of the population.[8]

As the Biden Administration recognizes the urgency of addressing environmental injustice, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”)’s investigation into Houston’s waste management practices is a notable example of the federal government’s commitment to ensuring that communities of color are not unfairly burdened with environmental hazards.

Louisiana:

Louisiana has been criticized for its inadequate regulation of toxic chemicals, particularly as it is home to Cancer Alley. The history of Cancer Alley dates back to the 1920s, when the first petrochemical plants were established in the area.[9] Originally coined “chemical corridor” for the hub of oil refineries that dot its landscape, 1987 brought a new name to the region: Cancer Alley.[10] The rapid industrialization of the region paired with lacking environmental regulations resulted in a wide range of ailments plaguing the residents, from cancer to mental and physical developmental disorders.[11]

Cancer Alley exemplifies the ongoing struggle to tackle the interconnected issues of race, poverty, and pollution. Home to African American and low-income residents, “this form of environmental racism poses serious and disproportionate threats to the enjoyment of several human rights . . . including the right to equality and non-discrimination, the right to health, right to an adequate standard of living and cultural rights.”[12] As federal investments roll out to the state, “air pollution projects are made possible to assess and address air quality across the industrial corridor.”[13] Thus, with Louisiana organizations receiving $2,399,604 from the IRA to support “air quality monitoring in marginalized communities,” agency oversight is paramount to prevent the perpetuation of past injustices.[14]

In October 2022, the EPA directed Louisiana to examine the disproportionate burdens black residents bear from air pollutants causing cancer. As of March 2023, Louisiana residents and the DOJ have unveiled a federal lawsuit. This lawsuit accuses local officials of civil rights and religious liberty violations by repeatedly approving the construction of petrochemical plants in two predominantly Black districts.[15] As such, the EPA and DOJ are collaborating to advance this pending litigation. When paired with federal investments and incentives, this partnership serves as an encouraging example for achieving justice and restoring dignity within vulnerable communities. This approach is necessary to mitigate the devastating impacts of environmental injustices and take concrete steps to rectify these harms.

Food is the fulcrum point for many people to pry away the tentacles of colonization. Food sovereignty is the principle behind the leverage.

Food sovereignty does not have a uniform definition; however, organizations generally define it as communities having control over the production, distribution, and quality of the food they consume. (1) Some other organizations take this definition further by addressing the social and economic relations of food systems:

“Food sovereignty is the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems. It puts the aspirations and needs of those who produce, distribute and consume food at the heart of food systems and policies rather than the demands of markets and corporations.” (2)

La Via Campesina, the organization that coined the term in 1996, further qualifies this definition; “Food is the expression of values, and human dignity, cultures, social relations and self-determination, interdependence with nature.” (3)

Along that line of interdependence with nature, communities bring benefits to themselves and the environment while pursuing food sovereignty. These benefits are the foil to the harm caused by the exploitative and extractive practices of colonial food systems. Instead of depleting the soil and producing food with low nutrient values, traditional practices produce resilient soils and nutrient rich food, without hazardous and expensive chemicals. (4) Furthermore, the money earned by food sales stays local, instead of being concentrated in a few agriculture corporations.

The history of colonial food systems has been that of domination and dependence. In the Americas, colonial powers worked to separate Indigenous people from their food sources to separate them from their cultural practices and weaken their ability to fight colonial expansion. Just a few of the many examples of these colonizing acts include: During the Sullivan Expedition the Continental army, while committing heinous war crimes against the Haudenosaunee, targeted and destroyed fields and winter stores of food; The American army, in a similar act, funded the near extermination of buffalo to weaken Indigenous peoples living on the plains and force them into dependency on government rations unreliably dispensed at the reservations; In South America the Spanish colonizers lead a destructive

campaign against quinoa cultivation to destabilize this cultural practice and force Indigenous farmers to rely on Spanish agricultural practices. (5)

Modern examples of colonial impacts on food systems exist as well. In South America Indigenous communities in the Amazon Basin have been forced to rely on commercial food supplies rather than their traditional food sources because government supported mining along the river has caused extremely dangerous levels of mercury contamination. (6) The Green Revolution, the agricultural movement in western societies that used heavy amounts of fertilizer, pesticides, and Genetically Modified Organisms, also continues to have a devastating effect on local farming communities. (7)

Despite increasing the global food yield and bringing relief to many countries experiencing famine in mid 20th century, this style of farming creates a dependency on industrial fertilizers and pesticides and designer seeds, the price point of which pushes small and traditional farmers out of the market. (8) This led to most food production being controlled by a few large agricultural corporations. (9)

Luckily, there are groups and organizations that work to empower people to take control of their lives through food. Organizations like Soul Fire Farm in New York and SUSU in Vermont grow healthy food for community members who lack access to healthy food. These organizations also educate people about traditional agricultural practices as a way to reclaim a connection to the land and control over what they eat. The Ron Finely Project follows a similar tack though teaching urban farming. The Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committees (PARC) channels resources and logistical aid to Palestinian farmers with the goal of creating “strong Palestinian rural areas empower[ed] by its agriculture sector and backboned with sovereignty.” (10) In the United States, the push for returning land access to Federal lands to Indigenous peoples has also aided the food sovereignty movement because it increases access to traditional food sources and medicines. (11)

U.S. slaughterhouses are violent places. They have dangerous and cruel effects on the exploited farmed animals themselves and the workers who perform their violent duties. These effects, however, do not simply cease to exist past confines of their walls. Slaughterhouses have harsh effects on the communities in which they operate, impacting the lives and safety of all nearby. The cruel and dangerous tasks demanded by current industry practices take a repeated toll on the welfare of all sentient beings in these communities. Slaughterhouses are exploiting whole communities, and the federal government needs to take a hard look at why it continues to help them do so.    

I. Conditions Inside and Outside the Slaughterhouse That Negatively Impact Workers

Slaughterhouse workers are some of the most exploited persons within the U.S. labor force. The majority of U.S. slaughterhouse workers are people of color with little to no bargaining power against the top four national processors that control the majority of U.S. meat supply. An estimated thirty-eight percent of these workers were born outside the U.S. and many are non-citizens. The issues these workers face are compounded by language barriers and fear of deportation, making the threat of retaliation too much for these at-will workers to report their concerns or injuries to those in charge. In some plants, employee turnover rate is as high as one hundred percent annually. In the last several years, union membership in the meatpacking industry has fallen, wages have decreased, and the occupational hazards have worsened.  

Most slaughterhouse facilities operate twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, requiring grueling hours for a wage that pays just above the federal poverty level for a family of four. OSHA has identified several workplace hazards in slaughterhouses, including dangerous equipment, hazardous chemicals, disease exposure, and high rates of musculoskeletal disorders. Slaughter jobs rank as one of the most dangerous professions in the world, with amputations commonly occurring roughly twice a week in the United States.  “The single largest factor contributing to worker injuries is the speed at which the animals are killed and processed.” Unfortunately, federal regulations continue to increase slaughter line speeds, worsening issues for the animals, the workers, and the communities in which slaughterhouses operate. 

II. The Regulatory Framework of Slaughterhouse Line Speeds

On average, a single worker will be tasked to kill one farmed animal every twelve seconds within the course of their shift. One worker describes the only way to accomplish this impossible task is to “not care” about the animals. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and it’s sub-agency, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) have the statutory authority to regulate the maximum speeds at which slaughterhouses can operate. The agency has recently been chipping away at maximum slaughter speeds and worsened many of the already dangerous working conditions in these facilities. FSIS is tasked with implementing the Secretary’s mandates under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act. Through this authority, the FSIS has continued to expand the maximum slaughter line speed to industry’s delight. The agency was forthright in addressing the tens of millions of dollars in profit that the industry would benefit from decreasing line speeds as a result of its most recent rule. The FSIS has explicitly acknowledged the evidence correlating increased line speeds to increased slaughterhouse workers. Yet the agency continues to wield its regulatory power to increase line speeds, while pointing the blame at OSHA to implement better worker safety standards. Currently, the FSIS permits slaughterhouses to kill up to 1,106 pigs and 175 chickens every hour, putting immense pressure on workers to keep up the line speed’s demand. The FSIS is blatantly ignoring the well-being of these workers and many have had their basic human rights violated.   

III. The Effects of Violence on the Workers of Factory Farms

Working in a distressing and hazardous environment has an impact on any average person’s mental health. When the work itself is inherently violent, many workers find it difficult to keep the effects from their work out of their own personal lives. Studies on the mental health of slaughterhouse workers are inhibited by language barriers and recruitment challenges, but several interviews with slaughterhouse workers confirm the mental anguish they experience from their work. Slaughterhouse workers have higher documented incidences of alcoholism, substance abuse, levels of aggression, anxiety, PTSD, and more convictions for violent crimes than other dangerous industrial jobs. Gail Eisintz, a writer well known for her documentation of conditions within the slaughterhouse has interviewed several employees of the meatpacking industry. Through her investigative work, she has documented several incidences of alcoholism, depression, sadism, and prison time for violent crimes amongst slaughterhouse workers. One slaughterhouse employee she interviewed told her “the worst thing” about the work was the emotional toll it took on him, even more so than the physical danger of performing such work. When slaughterhouse workers are unable to internalize the trauma of working in such environments, the aggression and violence they inflict on these animals follows them home and endangers all individuals within their communities.            

IV. Factory Farming’s Effect on its Neighbors in the Community

Slaughterhouse work perpetuates a vicious cycle of violence and abuse that endangers innocent lives. Communities with large slaughterhouses are plagued by increased rates of violent crime, housing shortages, increased demands for social assistance, and high rates of child abuse. Slaughterhouse employment is also associated with high rates of arrests for sexual assault and domestic violence. The U.S. Department of Justice has been studying the link between cruelty to animals and human violence for several decades now, and it is well established that exposure to violence can increase the violent inclinations within person.  In fact, many of the most infamous U.S. serial killers were known to have tortured or killed animals before they killed other humans. 

The Covid-19 pandemic hit slaughterhouse workers especially hard.  During the pandemic, slaughterhouse workers were given little to no protection from exposure, and experienced high rates of infection and death from the virus. In rural communities with high proportions of these meatpacking operations, cases of the virus were at rates ten times higher than other similarly situated rural areas. FSIS was given $33 million dollars in funding from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Act (CARES), and spent almost half of it to increase the salaries of the its own inspectors, leaving these workers and their communities with no support or protection to shield them from the dangers of the meatpacking industry.   

To add insult to injury, communities with slaughterhouses are constantly threatened by the pollution these facilities create. Hundreds of U.S. slaughterhouses dump their toxic waste directly into local waterways. This waste contains several human health hazards, including fecal bacteria, veterinary drugs, and cleaning products. Some facilities do not dump their waste directly into waterways, and instead house the waste in lagoons. During heavy rain periods or flooding, communities near these facilities report increased infectious rates, because the lagoons often overflow and contaminate community water supplies.  

V. Conclusion

Slaughterhouses are endangering communities and threatening the health and well-being of all within their vicinity. Until FSIS or OSHA decide to stop pointing the blame towards one another and implement better standards that acknowledge the health and welfare of the workers they employ, communities will continue to be harmed by their adverse effects.

The journey of an immigrant is a story of resilience, hope, fear, and survival. Unfortunately, too often, the villain of those stories is the United States immigration system. Despite referring to our society as a “melting pot,” our government and society have long resisted and feared immigrants. (1) This paradox has persisted and thrived, especially over the last decade. President Trump separated children from their families at the border and implemented Title 42, a policy that used the emergency of the pandemic to expeditiously send asylum seekers back to their home country or the country they were last in. (2) In February, the Biden Administration proposed a harsh replacement for the Title 42 policy, set to end in May, that radically limits asylum at the border. (3) The government continues to crack down on illegal immigration, arresting and removing noncitizens who violate U.S. immigration laws.

In the mix of complicated immigration policies and cruel treatment from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials, immigrants are exposed to toxins and pollution at detention centers while awaiting deportation. Exposure can come internally within the center or externally from surrounding facilities. Regardless of where the exposure comes from, people are trapped within the detention center. Not only does the system degrade an immigrant’s sense of humanity, but it also poisons them. Reports from three detention centers highlight this environmental entrapment:

Karnes County Residential Center is a privately operated immigrant detention center for families seeking asylum in the United States located in Karnes City, Texas. (4) Within 100 feet of the facility are gas flares and pumpjack oil wells. (5) These fracking emissions are harmful to human health and especially hazardous to vulnerable populations, including  children, newborns, and pregnant woman at the detention center. (6) A 2017 Earthworks report found an excess of benzene, hydrogen sulfide, cyclohexane, naphthalene, n-hexane, and xylenes in the area. (7) These chemicals cause respiratory illness, neurological problems, developmental damage, cancer, and sometimes death. (8) On top of the environmental exposures, immigrants at the facility have filed numerous mistreatment claims, including allegations that officers sexually assaulted women, denied medical care to children, and that people were “treated like animals.” (9)

The Northwest CE Processing Center, located in Tacoma, Washington, is operated by the private GEO Group. (10) The center sits adjacent to a federal Superfund cleanup site where a coal gasification plant released toxic sludge into the soil for over three decades. (11) Today, the site is still dotted with drainage ditches, retention ponds, and a capped waste pile. (12) The EPA Superfund contaminant list shows the soil, sediment, surface water, groundwater, and air supplies to be polluted with 27 different compounds. (13) These compounds can cause skin irritation, respiratory infections, developmental effects, cancers, organ failure, and sometimes death. (14) Additionally, the building is constructed on a low-lying floodplain on top of loose soils prone to liquifying during earthquakes. (15) If an earthquake  were to hit, the GEO Group would have less than eight minutes to evacuate over 1,500 immigrants, and their safety plans have never been released to the public. (16) More recently, in February 2023, GEO guards used chemical agents following a physical conflict about conditions at the facility, including the food served to immigrants. (17) Chemical agents, like tear gas, can cause blindness, glaucoma, respiratory failure, and chemical burns to the throat and lungs. (18) As of the date of this article, the Washington State Attorney General is investigating the incident. (19)

In 2022, nine individuals filed a complaint against the privately-owned Imperial Regional Detention Facility in Calexico, California. (20) The complaint alleged civil and human rights violations, including toxic and unfiltered air, contaminated water, and exposure to dust and mold. (21) According to the complaint, immigrants detained at Imperial experience difficulty breathing and suffer from headaches and gastrointestinal pains. (22) The facility’s nonfunctional air ventilation system is the primary cause of these issues. (23) This is not the first time immigrants in the facility have called out the Imperial facility for its unsafe practices. In 2020, the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Homeland Security ordered ICE to address conditions at the facility, including “mold, rust, and peeling paint in showers in detainee housing areas.” (24) ICE claims to have addressed the issues, but as the 2022 complaint highlights, that is not the case. (25) Immigrants in the facility claimed that the mold was covered in paint and reappeared. They also shared their experiences with skin problems, hives, and vision issues that they believe stem from contaminated water at the facility. (26) Advocates should continue to follow the status of this complaint.

Sadly, these are just three examples of the toxic conditions ICE subjects immigrants to. Every facility has unique challenges, whether it is its location, the condition of the center, or the actions of enforcement officers. A common message exists though: private parties working under ICE’s authority must be held accountable for their actions. The U.S. immigration system equates anti-immigration policies with anti-humanitarian policies. It bears repeating this philosophy is not only dehumanizing immigrants but also poisoning them. We need to stop removing immigrants from the “melting pot” and locking them in polluted cages.

Many Americans consider lawns synonymous with success, comfort, and community. (1) They have often become ubiquitous, perhaps without due consideration. (2) Neat lawns are enforced in a variety of ways, including zoning codes and home-owners associations. (3) Nonetheless, they cause a great deal of environmental problems, including “dramatic potable water consumption, high energy costs from water use, increased water and air pollution, and loss of biodiversity.” (4)  

Luckily, awareness of lawns’ negative impact is on the rise. (5) One facet of response is to reform Homeowners’ agreements and zoning codes. Another is participating in the growing permaculture movement. As with any change, not all people experience this progress in the same way. While it promises an idyllic solution to a portion of our current environmental challenges, the permaculture movement causes a rift in our culture. The rift must be overcome if we are to move forward. 

The permaculture movement involves working with the land and pre-existing ecosystems to increase biodiversity, productivity, and environmental wellness. (6) Many have hailed this movement as a potential savior of much of America’s land, as lawns are currently the country’s biggest irrigated crop. (7) Unfortunately, the movement also causes a greater socioeconomic rift between people who have the luxury to take advantage of the publicized, commercialized version of the movement and those who either find its tenets self-evident or will not have the luxury to invest in the solution. (8) Instead of a constructive improvement on a common way of life, traditional knowledge has sometimes been appropriated for capital and used to justify buying more high-value land. (9) Some go so far as to say the movement “demoniz[es] small peasant [farmers]” (10) as it extolls those who will pay for the solution. (11)   

One solution to this rift is to consider the possible colonizing effects of a permaculture movement within the current economic structure and adapt to minimize them. For example, people can offer permaculture knowledge freely instead of charging large fees. They can give proper deference to cultural knowledge they draw from, instead of presenting the information as purely their own.  

Another constructive solution is to give more people the option of improving their existing situation by removing legal barriers. There is growing support for lawn rewilding, (12) and legally binding zoning ordinances and homeowners’ associations rules will likely follow suit. Either communities can advocate with their municipalities to change the prevailing zoning laws, or individuals can apply for variances or conditional use permits to alter their own properties. (13) Homeowners’ associations often make their rules at will and can change their lawn requirements by vote. (14) General availability of knowledge related to permaculture and rewilding, combined with the freedom to carry out a project, could have a major impact on the American landscape and biodiversity. 

There are obstacles to overcoming the mythos of the American lawn, beyond the immediate legal obstacles. The rift in socioeconomic status related to lawns is also related to the American Dream mythos, and the idea of success, and homeownership. (15) There are huge racial disparities in American homeownership and access to lawns. (16) Destroying lawns lowers property value in a neighborhood, no doubt because of prevailing biases and ideas. (17)                                                                    

Following World War II, the federal government allocated funding to help veterans and families achieve homeownership. (18) These policies were deeply discriminatory in implementation, for the most part benefitting only white families. (19) The lawn was quickly adapted as a symbol of power and freedom from either the monochrome of the city or the dirt and crops of agrarian homes. (20) Lawns of plants grown for no reason besides beauty and sport had been a European power symbol even back to medieval castles, and were modernized into a common feature of many American lawns as a show of abundance. (21) The history of lawns shows the roots of ties between the value increase they confer on a property (22) and racial bias. 

People without lawns of their own can participate in so-called “guerrilla permaculture.” (23) This term is loosely defined, but generally entails the pursuit of alternative gardening for nourishment and reclamation of unused land, for example by using “seed bombs” (24) on empty lots. (25) It sometimes intends to disrupt the concept of land ownership entirely. (26)

Attempting to align landowners with lawns and people without access to gardens (and perhaps an intent to disrupt land ownership altogether) muddies the waters of permaculture. Cultural divides are not easily overcome, even in pursuit of a solution to a major environmental issue. The permaculture movement bears many loose definitions and associations. Still, the basics of the idea may appeal to everyone if they are made legally accessible and convenient. If all participants proceed with caution and communication, permaculture and rewilding may be made more broadly accessible, with benefits for all participants.  

The truth of climate change becomes more prevalent every year, particularly in the Pacific Islands, where increases in storm frequency and severity, along with sea level rise, puts the Pacific Islands at greater risk than the developed world. Waves constantly wash over low-lying islands in the Pacific, damaging crops and groundwater supplies. A recent study shows that the repeated damage due to climate change could render many Pacific Islands uninhabitable as early as 2030. Whole island nations are facing erasure, while industrialized countries reap all the benefits of high carbon emitting activities. For small island states, like the Republic of Palau, the climate crisis is personal. People living in Palau deal with the reality of climate change on a daily basis. In an interview, former President Tommy Remengesau Jr. described his own experiences in using sandbags to prevent the sea level rise from washing away his home. He goes on to explain that sea level rise affects more than just homes; the salt water from the ocean has inundated farms and plantations. Once the soil has been inundated with salt water, the soil is often no longer arable. In addition to sea level rise, ocean acidification greatly affects islands like Palau. The acidification causes coral bleaching, which can affect the fishing environment. Coral cover plays a vital role in determining the overall health of a coral ecosystem. Coral “[r]eefs provide home and shelter to over 25 percent of fish in the ocean and up to 2 million marine species.” This has overarching effects on the people in Palau because fishing plays a key role in Palauan culture as not only sport fishing but sustenance fishing, meaning that climate change not only effects the structures on the island, but many of the aspects central to their culture and survival.

As one can expect, because of the severe effects of climate change in Pacific Islands, Island leaders have tried to be a strong voice in international climate debates. But, despite their efforts, they remain unheard by industrialized nations who have the most power to influence change. However, not all is lost. Over the last year, there have been a series of pushes from the small island states and other climate vulnerable nations to take a legal approach to encouraging international action. Vanuatu, another Pacific Island, has proposed an initiative to request an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to “issue an opinion on the obligations countries have to protect the rights of present and future generations from the harmful impacts of climate change.” In its efforts to obtain the opinion, Vanuatu has been gathering support to try and compel the ICJ to issue an advisory opinion. An ICJ advisory opinion is not binding, but it can help hold nations accountable for protecting human rights as they relate to climate change. And, as conditions worsen, it becomes increasingly essential that there be some mechanism by which small island states can hold large nations accountable for the actions they take that exacerbate climate change. As of March 1, 2023, there are 105 co-sponsors for the United Nations (UN) Climate Justice Resolution. Currently, the resolution is expected to be adopted by the UN General Assembly in late March or early April. A favorable ICJ advisory opinion would be essential for future climate debates. For more information about that resolution, and to follow recent updates, please visit this link.

The issues surrounding climate change in the Pacific Islands are prime examples of how environmental injustice plays out on an international scale. People living in the Pacific Islands are routinely ignored in international debates, their cries for help stretching across decades of debate in the international community. But, individuals from wealthier, higher polluting countries turn a blind eye to the harm that occurs in developing nations on a daily basis because for nations relatively unaffected by climate change, the harm felt by climate change is easy to ignore. To quote a song written by an artist in Vanuatu: 

“What does it take for you to see 

Lives are being lost 

With all the storms raging, corals dying, ocean levels rising 

It’s a threat to our human rights.”  

People living in the Pacific Islands do not have time to wait. Action needs to happen now. Voices in the Pacific need to be heard before it is too late, and the beautiful culture and humanity of the Pacific become the next Atlantis, islands lost to time.

Despite their crowded streets, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Newark, Chicago, and other large urban communities are often considered food deserts. Food deserts are regions of food insecurity where healthy, fresh groceries are virtually inaccessible. Food deserts are typically marked by low income, lack of access to adequate public transportation, or simply lack of choice in the area. Food insecurity already impacted nearly 11% of Americans in 2019 before the COVID-19 pandemic hit. Statistics also showed that food deserts disproportionately impacted communities of color during the same period. In 2019, about 8.1% of white individuals experienced food insecurity in their communities. In comparison, Latino individuals experienced food insecurity at a rate of 15.8% Black individuals at 19.3%, and Indigenous individuals at 23.5%. By the end of 2020, Black households were experiencing food insecurity at a rate of 21.7% and Latino households at a rate of 17.2%. On the other hand, white households reported experiencing food insecurity at a rate of just over 7%. Researchers have observed that “food insecurity is experienced in greater proportion by these racial and ethnic groups due to a number of factors — a key one being structural racism.” Delays, supply chain problems, and limited labor have also led to problems in quality control, making nutritious options that much tougher to come by on a regular basis. So how can communities take on food insecurity made worse by the onset of COVID-19 without the help of chain grocery stores?

Zoning Laws

A potential solution to food insecurity in urban spaces that is gaining some attention is amending zoning laws and regulations to make local agriculture more accessible. Zoning ordinances can be confusing, and often mention terms that do not have a clear vernacular equivalent. Towns can amend zoning ordinances and regulations to use clearer terminology that explicitly authorizes urban agricultural uses. This change can bring fresh fruits and vegetables to the community, from the community. Similar changes might include language that explicitly allows farmers markets and produce vendors to set up stands in public spaces, or language that allows for larger-scale agricultural projects in community gardens.

The Healthy Food Policy Project created guidelines to assist communities in drafting definition sections of zoning laws to make them clearer and easier to understand in order to increase access to healthful foods in areas impacted by food insecurity. The guidelines suggest drafting strategies to simplify interpreting zoning requirements, like including examples of permitted practices or burying the meaning of a word in the operative language instead of separating the term and its definition. These changes make it easier for communities to understand and comply with zoning laws while bringing gardens and urban agricultural centers to the community with greater confidence.

Subsidize Healthier Choices and Incentivize Eating Well

Another study suggests that two-thirds of households using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits bought a greater variety of healthy fruits and vegetables while testing an incentive program aimed at eliminating food insecurity. During a test run of the Healthy Incentive Pilot (HIP), the USDA offered participants who used SNAP benefits an incentive of 30 cents per dollar spent on targeted fresh fruits and vegetables. Researchers reported inspiring results, households increased SNAP spending on fresh fruits and vegetables by an average of 11% which led to an increased Healthy Eating Index rating, ranging from 57/100 to 62/100. Perhaps most importantly, 75% of households felt healthy fruits and vegetables were more accessible and affordable as a result of the HIP incentive. One of the greatest challenges of increasing food security is encouraging communities to regularly purchase and seek out healthy foods in their own neighborhoods. Incentives like those tested here would certainly get many households on the right path.

Incentive programs have the potential to impact food insecurity much faster than other options. Programs like HIP immediately give families more money to spend on healthful foods and make fruits and vegetables affordable. An incentive or subsidy program could also be implemented without the cooperation or contribution from grocery stores themselves if suppliers of healthier foods are reluctant to open a location in a food desert. By handling the issue from an economic standpoint, households would still pay the same price to vendors or stores, but with help with financing instead of just options. While this is not a terribly optimistic option, it is realistic given the lack of enthusiasm from larger companies and retail stores to open a location in areas where poverty and food insecurity affect families the most.

Utilize School Meal Programs 

When healthy options are not just too expensive but too scarce, communities could tackle food insecurity in public schools. By making an effort to offer healthy options to students receiving free meals at schools, especially during a health crisis like COVID-19, students can learn at an early age to value and prioritize eating well. A case study of four large, urban high schools in Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston, and New York looked at public schools’ responses to emergencies and how they provided students with healthy meals during a crisis. At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March of 2020, Congress authorized the distribution of federal relief packages to schools that provided meals for students experiencing food insecurity. The USDA supplemented these efforts, granting waivers to aid schools in providing food options like extended food service hours, takeout meals, and allowing parents to come to pick up meals without their children with them. Efforts like these yielded a noteworthy increase in healthy foods available and consumed by students attending these schools. This trend continued even after classes were moved online during the pandemic. The study also showed that schools that allowed adults and children to pick up food and schools that made meals with dietary restrictions in mind were hugely beneficial to students who would otherwise be considered food insecure.

Even as the COVID-19 pandemic evolves and schools start to get a handle on managing classes and events with students’ health in mind, it should be clear that food insecurity is always a health concern. School lunch programs like those implemented during the pandemic can continue in areas where food insecurity remains high due to factors other than those related to COVID-19 alone. 

Looking Ahead

The COVID-19 epidemic has prompted widespread concern for health and community wellness and specifically highlighted food security concerns. The pandemic exacerbated issues of poverty and environmental injustice. But that might ultimately draw enough attention to encourage work toward meaningful solutions to these ongoing injustices. Local, small-scale changes like allowing consistent agricultural activity in urban areas (by amending zoning regulations) or encouraging subsidy programs to help schools in food deserts revitalize the community could have a huge impact on food insecurity in the United States. If big businesses and chain stores are reluctant to enter areas with high rates of food insecurity, it is still possible for community members to utilize legal tools to make their neighborhoods healthier places to live.