Prisons: Environmental Injustice, Toxic Exposure, and a Lack of Humanitarianism

In Spring 2023, students in WWU’s ENVS 499D: Readings in Environmental Justice are learning about the intersections between environmental justice and incarceration. This post reflects some of the group’s learning and discussion

By Olivia Berner, Morgan MacIntyre, Emily Delgado, and Taylor Michaels

In the article, “Tombstone Towns and Toxic Prisons: Prison Ecology and the Necessity of an Anti‑prison Environmental Movement” the authors discuss the pollutant exposure at Central Michigan and St. Louis Correctional facilities due to their proximity to a federal Superfund site. The Superfund site was established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after the Michigan Chemical Corporation accidentally sent fire retardants with PBBs to a Michigan Farm instead of cattle feed supplements. The animals were poisoned, and the site was deemed contaminated. The correctional facilities near the site were found to have contaminated water with pCBSA. A granite tombstone labeled “Warning: Do Not Enter” was placed at the superfund site as a symbol of death. In 2006, several inmates attempted to file a lawsuit against the facility for being forced to drink the water in Rouse v. Caruso 2006. However, the lawsuit was dropped as the Seventh Circuit claimed exposure to contaminants did not violate their Eighth Amendment rights (Bradshaw, 2018).

The court’s failure to protect inmates from pollutant exposure shows how little they value the lives of prisoners who are disproportionally low-income, people of color. Prisoners are particularly vulnerable to environmental harm since they have very little autonomy. In this case, the inmates were forced to drink the contaminated water, while the correctional officers brought in water bottles for themselves. This, in our opinion, is a demonstration of the officers’ understanding of the potential health risk presented by these environmental hazards. Subsequently, it also demonstrates their lack of thought, care, or empathy toward those they are deemed responsible for, who have already had most of their basic rights withheld. The health impacts of pCBSA are severe and persistent, forcing the affected inmates to suffer these consequences long after their sentences have ended (Bradshaw, 2018).

Exposing inmates to contamination is not limited to Michigan prisons and jails, but instead is a country-wide epidemic affecting thousands of prisoners. The EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance Database exposes a total of 180 prisons, jails, and detention facilities that were violating federal environmental laws. Exposure to contaminants is damaging the health of incarcerated folks. Exposure to the insecticides, DDT causes abortions, breast cancer, reduction in quality of semen, and diabetes (Eskenazi et al. 2009).

The lack of protection for inmates from environmental hazards and the disregard for their health further emphasizes the need for reform in the criminal justice system to ensure the safety and protection of all individuals, regardless of their incarceration status. The court’s failure to recognize and protect the inmate’s rights to a safe and healthy environment demonstrates a clear lack of regard for the lives and well-being of one of the most vulnerable populations in the United States. It is unjust for inmates to face these health risks with no options to protect themselves and it is essential that the safety of the US prison system becomes a priority.

Works Cited:

Bradshaw, E. A. (2018). Tombstone towns and toxic prisons: Prison ecology and the necessity of an anti-prison environmental movement. Download Tombstone towns and toxic prisons: Prison ecology and the necessity of an anti-prison environmental movement. Critical Criminology, 26, 407–422.

Eskenazi, B., Chevrier, J., Rosas, L. G., Anderson, H. A., Bornman, M. S., Bouwman, H., Chen, A., Cohn, B. A., de Jager, C., Henshel, D. S., Leipzig, F., Leipzig, J. S., Lorenz, E. C., Snedeker, S. M., & Stapleton, D. (2009). The Pine River statement: human health consequences of DDT use. Environmental health perspectives, 117(9), 1359–1367. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.11748