A conversation with Syracuse Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) steering committee member Forrest Teske and his take on some of the main issues surrounding Onondaga Lake. Including: Refugees and immigrants fishing for sustenance, the clean-up efforts undertaken by Honeywell, and his knowledge on the exclusion of Native people's in the effort to restore such a sacred piece of their history.
Forrest acknowledges he is no expert in this area but was happy to attempt to communicate his understanding of the issues with us. You can find the audio here!
0 Comments
Paresi:
Hello Dr. Teron. Thank you for agreeing to speak today. My group members and I have undertaken research on the frequency and adequacy of health advisories against eating fish from Onondaga Lake. We are concerned that some residents and their families, whom we refer to as subsistence anglers, are consuming several times per week what the New York State Department of Health recommends. You have mentioned this issue before in your introduction to environmental studies course, but I am curious when you first learned of this segment of the local population and the health risks they may regularly be exposed to. Teron: It was years before I moved to upstate New York when I first learned of this issue. A PBS documentary on the design of healthy communities mentioned the long-term impacts of legacy pollutants on vulnerable communities in Syracuse. Not being a Central New Yorker I had no idea of the infamous history of Onondaga Lake. Inspired by the content of the documentary I really started thinking about these issues. There was a seminar series on campus a couple of years ago which focused on Onondaga Lake and which featured several perspectives on the issue. I was asked to look at what's going on from an environmental justice perspective. My seminar explored the ethical dimensions of the historical practice of polluting the lake and its sediments… So that was my entry point into Onondaga Lake. Trick: When communicating to the public about marginalized communities do you typically find it easier to use the term environmental injustice compared with the term environmental racism? I have personally found that some people are uncomfortable taking part in conversations on racial inequality. Teron: That's so interesting you say that, because there have been conversations in academia on how people get nervous in response to the ‘R’ word- Racism. It's important to realize though that environmental racism is just one articulation of environmental justice, so in a sense environmental justice is a catch all term. When you're speaking about a more amorphous term like environmental justice or injustice in reference to racist behavior you can dilute racist claims. The reason why the catch all term is used though in reference to the lake or at least the reason why I use it is because in addition to racial and ethnic inequality, there are some profound gender inequalities. I'm sure you've all seen the fish advisory by now. The gender implications are appalling. There are just certain fish that perhaps nobody should be eating but there are specific advisories for women under the age of 50. I think the term ‘men under the age of 15’ is used although of course nobody is a man at the age of 15. Paresi: I believe that men above the age of 15 are recommended to limit their consumption of fish to one meal a weak, whereas women under 50 and children are advised to eat no fish whatsoever. Rivera: Do you feel as if there is a communication barrier between public health officials and the community in question? Teron: You have to realize there are many different species of fish that people are catching for sustenance. You can't just say there is a fish advisory in the lake. We need to be very specific on which fish species we're talking about. Some should not be eaten under any circumstances, while others will have a different recommendation. The DEC has a table online with specific information on the different classes of advisory. Rivera: Are you aware of any efforts or strategies of local government to reach out to organizations that work directly with the communities who may rely on fish from the lake? Teron: When these things are communicated we should be very sensitive to the populations that are most vulnerable… So, you're looking at people who are subsistence fishing, and the classic example of environmental injustice surrounding the issue: fishing advisories designed for a narrow audience. Initially any signage intended to discourage consumption was not multilingual. To some folks with limited English proficiencies who were also engaged in fishing, the signs were not relevant. The City of Syracuse recognized the consequences of their inadequate advisories. In a second iteration of sign development similar rhetoric was used but in several different languages. Additionally, a manipulated image of a fish was included to avoid misinterpretation of what critics called the ‘happy fish.’ And once again if English wasn't your language proficiency you might go ‘wow, there is some good bass fishing in this area!’ But you saw essentially in the second round after community consultation an advisory with clear visuals that showed a pregnant woman, a small child and a woman not bearing a child. So even if you did not have proficiencies in any of the three or four featured languages you would understand to avoid consumption of lake-sourced fish from a universal sign for ‘don't consume.’ So that would be an example of -- I don't know if you can say the officials getting it right-- but certainly taking a step in the positive direction. How can officials better interact with refugee communities or a population that you're looking at? I think it would be best to go to those communities and ask ‘what has been your dialogue? What has been your interaction with these officials?’ Groundwork is required to ask directly what their interface is with officials from state agencies. Rivera: Do you believe that grassroots organizations within Onondaga County have the responsibility to communicate with the community? Teron: Well I'm not one to say grassroots organizations have the responsibility, but these organizations are on the front lines and really when you think about the base operations for people who are the most marginalized of the marginalized within Onondaga County a lot of times NGOs are a lifeline for the community. They help people out with religious networks, financial networks, educational resources, and all types of community resources. So, whether it's their responsibility, I'm telling you this: it makes sense for there to be some interaction between these grassroots/NGOs and official county, city or state level mechanisms. Paresi: We did discover an ongoing study which is a joint project between the Federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the New York State Department of Health. It's called The Biomonitoring of Great Lakes Populations, and there's a local iteration of the project here in Syracuse for which the Department of Health will collect blood and urine samples from consenting adults in two subpopulations. The first is 300 Bhutanese refugees who eat a substantial amount of fish from Onondaga lake and 100 urban dwellers who rely on fish from Onondaga lake as well. What do you think the policy implications of this study will be if it does produce evidence of elevated toxin levels? Teron: There have been studies or there has been at least one study where I've seen that you have people who are subsistence fishing and are relying on meals of fish dozens of times a month. So, I think you're talking about two very distinct populations who may have drastically different engagements with the Lake for subsistence purposes. Paresi: I've reached out to a local official from the Department of Health regarding their outreach strategies, but they have yet to respond. Teron: I don't want to speculate on what the findings will be, but if we know the chemistry of the lake and we know how these toxins bioaccumulate, then one policy implication could be a changing of the advisory or a changing of the level of fishing that's allowed. Once again, I don't want to speculate on this science but if we find out some things are in people's bodies that we know are not conducive to human health then potentially a new policy could be a moratorium on non-recreational fishing on this lake. But you have to realize this is not done in a vacuum. If we realize this is within the context of food insecurity, then you can't just say I'm taking away somebody’s livelihood without making sure that people have access to food. So, what will be the alternative? There's going to have to be something that fills that void. If we recognize that people are subsistence fishing and if we determine that you have the bioaccumulation of some chemicals that we don't want in humans or in fish bodies, then we're going to have to ultimately ask what some other food alternatives are. How can we reinforce food sovereignty via non-fishing methods? Paresi: Enforcement would be required for such a policy. Teron: As well as cultural sensitivity. There are many different implications to this thinking and that's why it's so important when talking about policy. It can't just be policy makers making policy. It can't be just policy makers who consult with communities. It must be communities who are an active, viable part of their policy. How can we get folks actively involved in what this transition will look like? This is something that transcends this one issue and something we need for us to have more effective governance. There needs to be more community participation. People need to have entries into public life and into public decision making. So regardless of how this scientific study turns out I think that this ideology is applicable whether we’re talking about building up the urban tree canopy, establishing food security or redeveloping I-81. Rivera: Do you think some people might stray away from giving an opinion because they feel like they may lack professional or academic merit and believe they are not in the position to speak on behalf of their communities even though they are directly impacted? Teron: Right! You make a very compelling point. The professionalization of planning and policy-making does create walls… They want people with heightened expertise to make your policy, but you must realize there are many different dimensions of expertise. Many different types of experience, education and knowledge are things we should value strongly… |
Archives
November 2018
Categories |