Communicating Health: Political Risk Narratives in an Environmental Health Campaign

Abstract

This four-year participant observation study of a “good neighbor” campaign aimed at chemical releases from a plastics plant in southwest Ohio investigates the role that health discourses play in environmental health disputes. Environmental health activists defined health, attributed illness causation, and narrated risk in ways that resisted dominant approaches to health, science, and corporate issues management. Those constructions were contested in everyday interactions with neighbors, corporate management, and regulators. The research found that neighbors’ biographical health narratives politicized risk in ways that aided the negotiation of emissions reductions, but individualized, passive, and technocratic approaches to health risks presented barriers to fully understanding the health effects of chemical emissions. The study demonstrates the need for campaign practitioners to raise critical public awareness of taken-for-granted health beliefs, and for greater involvement of academics in promoting democratic scientific methods.

Keywords:

• Health
• Political Risk
• Narratives
• Environmental Health Campaign
• Health Activism
• Organizing

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank her research assistant Meagan Tener, Ohio Citizen Action, and research participants as well as Majia Nadesan for reviewing a draft of this essay

Notes

1. The Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle developed at the 1998 Science and Environmental Health Network reads, “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context, the proponent of any activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof. The process of applying the precautionary principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties” (Mayer, 2009, p. 65). Developed as a guideline in Germany in the 1970s, the principle has been a part of major intergovernmental treaties and now guides Europe's REACH laws (Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals), which requires that companies must show that chemicals of concern can be used safely, that no alternatives exist, or that benefits outweigh risks in exchange for limited authorization (Brown, 2007).

2. Names have been changed or omitted to protect privacy, although some participants are recognizable in press reports of this incident.

3. I found that although my commitment to understanding the role of communication in achieving reduced emissions and greater understanding of potential health effects placed me in an advocacy role for concerned neighbors, I was able to engage in dialogue with plant managers and regulators. Indeed, I became aware of how I sometimes prefer middle-class, “professional” norms for public communication and had to manage that bias. Often, I played an informal role in translating the language used by one group for the others. My role on the task force helped me to understand a wide range of community perspectives, and it also demonstrated both the ideological and practical everyday challenges of managing science by the regulatory agencies.

4. Although the physician stated, “We have a concern about long terms cancer effects, just like smoking” when air monitors ultimately showed consistent chemical emissions from the plant, the company contested the OEPA's research methodology that linked long-term exposure with cancer risks.

5. Health department members explained to the task force that “The community requested a cancer cluster study, but we are not doing a cancer cluster study because that suggests we already know there is one and are investigating. Instead, we will look at state cancer data as has been requested, and then they will compare community cancer with other similar communities.” The health department representative to the task force explained that the health report would describe cancer in the community but should not “relate those cancers in any way to the Lanxess plant or chemical exposures. It will talk about the incidence of cancer and not why it is occurring.”

6. Data from the Ohio Cancer Incidence Surveillance System (OCISS) registry were compared with “expected rates” of cancer using national averages (SEER data) as well as state and county data.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Heather M. Zoller

Heather M. Zoller (PhD Purdue) is an Associate Professor at the Univesity of Cincinnati. The research was funded by a grant from the University of Cincinnati Research Council