Earlier this year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a new rule to limit emissions of ethylene oxide from facilities that sterilize medical supplies and food. This was a significant development for public health, but it was the culmination of years of advocacy by concerned residents and environmental justice advocates.
The UCS report, “Invisible Threat, Inequitable Impact,” highlights that over 13 million people live within five miles of facilities that emit ethylene oxide. These individuals are often from marginalized communities, including Black or Brown, low-income, or non-English speaking populations. For a long time, the federal government prioritized the interests of the chemical industry over the health and safety of those affected by ethylene oxide emissions.
Darya Minovi, a senior analyst at the Center for Science and Democracy at UCS, led the research for the “Invisible Threat, Inequitable Impact” report. She collaborated closely with community advocates to identify ethylene oxide-emitting facilities and underscore the risks they pose. Minovi emphasizes the importance of public participation in shaping policies that impact communities.
In a recent interview, Minovi discussed the challenges faced by communities grappling with the threat of ethylene oxide exposure. She highlighted the power dynamics at play, with industries exerting influence and regulatory processes being unnecessarily complex. However, the collective efforts of impacted communities, bolstered by legal action and public pressure, ultimately led to progress in regulating ethylene oxide emissions.
Minovi also touched on the lessons learned from the ethylene oxide research and the role of public engagement in decision-making processes. She commended the EPA for its efforts to involve the public in the rulemaking process but noted disparities in engagement across different regulations. Moving forward, Minovi advocates for greater transparency and inclusivity in regulatory processes to prioritize public health concerns.
When asked about how scientists can support communities advocating for their health and safety, Minovi emphasized the importance of collaboration and humility. She stressed the value of building relationships with grassroots groups, listening to their priorities, and offering expertise where needed. Joining initiatives like UCS’ Science Network can provide scientists with opportunities to directly contribute their knowledge to community advocacy efforts.
In conclusion, the journey towards regulating ethylene oxide emissions highlights the impact of community-led advocacy and the need for inclusive decision-making processes. By amplifying the voices of affected communities and fostering collaboration between scientists and advocates, we can work towards a healthier and more equitable future.
