STUDENT VOICES | THE 2025 CHYNN ETHICS PAPER HONORABLE MENTION
Environmental Racism
By Bianca Barreiro – Fordham College, Rose Hill 2026
Environmental racism is often discussed in terms of toxic waste sites, air pollution, or hazardous housing conditions. Yet one of its most insidious manifestations occurs through food systems. In many urban communities, particularly those historically shaped by redlining and economic disinvestment, residents face limited access to fresh, high-quality food and increased exposure to industrially processed products. Growing up in the Bronx, these patterns felt normal. Cheaper grocery options and limited access to organic produce were simply part of everyday life in my community. Only later did it become clear that these food patterns were not simply matters of personal preference but reflections of broader structural inequalities embedded in urban food systems. These disparities are not accidental; they reflect structural inequities integrated in zoning, economic policy, and environmental regulation. Women in these communities, especially women of color, bear a disproportionate burden of these inequities as nutritional inequality intersects with reproductive health risks and exposure to environmental contaminants. Examining food quality disparities through the lens of environmental racism reveals a profound ethical dilemma concerning distributive justice, public health responsibility, and the gendered consequences of structural neglect.
Scholars of environmental justice have long argued that environmental harms are not distributed randomly but follow racial and socioeconomic lines. Robert Bullard’s foundational work demonstrates that communities of color are more likely to be exposed to environmental hazards due to discriminatory policy and land-use decisions (Bullard). While much of this scholarship has focused on pollution and waste, food environments represent a parallel form of environmental injustice. Research shows that low-income urban neighborhoods are more likely to be “food deserts” or “food swamps,” areas with limited access to supermarkets but high concentrations of fast-food outlets and convenience stores (Walker). These food environments shape dietary patterns not merely through individual choice but through structural availability. When healthier food options are scarce or unaffordable, residents are constrained by systemic forces rather than personal preference.
The industrial food system compounds these inequities. While the United States prohibits the use of added hormones in poultry production (United States Department of Agriculture), industrial livestock practices often involve the use of antibiotics to promote growth and prevent disease in crowded conditions. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identifies antibiotic resistance as a significant public health threat, partially linked to the overuse of antimicrobials in agriculture (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Antibiotic Resistance Threats”). Communities that rely heavily on low-cost industrial meat products may therefore be indirectly affected by broader public health risks. The ethical issue is not simply the safety of a single product but the unequal distribution of risk within the food system.
Importantly, women experience these food-related inequities in gender-specific ways. Reproductive health is susceptible to environmental conditions and nutritional stressors. Scholars have identified links between environmental exposures, metabolic disorders, and reproductive health disparities in marginalized communities (Agyeman et al.). Although there is no scientific evidence that poultry hormones cause conditions such as polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), broader research indicates that endocrine-disrupting chemicals, often present in plastics, pesticides, and industrial pollutants, can interfere with hormonal regulation (Agyeman et al.). Women in underserved urban areas may face higher cumulative exposure to such contaminants due to housing conditions, environmental pollution, and food packaging materials.
Moreover, nutritional inequality intersects with maternal health disparities. The United States already faces alarming racial gaps in maternal mortality, with Black women experiencing significantly higher risks than white women. Poor diet quality and environmental stressors contribute to metabolic conditions such as obesity, hypertension, and gestational diabetes, all factors that increase pregnancy complications. When access to fresh produce and nutrient-dense foods is structurally limited, the resulting health burdens disproportionately affect women’s bodies.
Philosopher Florencia Luna’s concept of “layers of vulnerability” helps illuminate the ethical dimensions of these disparities. Luna argues that vulnerability should not be understood as a fixed characteristic belonging to certain groups, but rather as the result of overlapping social conditions that increase the likelihood of harm (Luna). Individuals and communities can experience multiple layers of vulnerability that compound one another. In underserved urban environments, women may face several intersecting layers simultaneously: economic inequality, environmental contamination, limited access to nutritious food, and existing health disparities. These overlapping conditions do not operate independently; instead, they reinforce one another and intensify health risks.
This framework helps explain why environmental racism disproportionately affects women’s reproductive health. When communities are structurally exposed to poor food environments and environmental contaminants, the cumulative effects can shape long-term health outcomes. These layered vulnerabilities also extend across generations. During pregnancy, environmental exposures and dietary limitations can influence fetal development, meaning that structural inequalities affecting mothers may also impact future children. Understanding environmental racism through the lens of layered vulnerability, therefore, highlights the ethical responsibility to address structural conditions that amplify risk for already marginalized populations.
Mercury contamination in fish provides another illustration of this dilemma. Public health agencies in New York issue advisories warning pregnant women to avoid consuming certain locally caught fish due to elevated mercury levels (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Mercury and Pregnancy”). Mercury exposure during pregnancy is associated with neurodevelopmental harm in fetuses. Fish is widely recommended as a healthy source of protein and omega-3 fatty acids, yet environmental contamination renders some local food sources unsafe. In communities with limited access to diverse protein options, these advisories can further constrain already limited dietary choices. This creates a troubling contradiction: public health guidelines encourage the consumption of nutritious food, while environmental degradation makes such consumption risky.
From an ethical standpoint, these patterns raise serious concerns about structural inequality and public responsibility. Environmental racism is not merely an unfortunate byproduct of economic development; it reflects historical decisions that have placed environmental burdens on marginalized communities. When certain neighborhoods experience lower food quality, greater exposure to industrial agriculture products, and higher environmental contamination, the risks of the food system are distributed unequally. Within the framework of layered vulnerability, these disparities can be understood as the cumulative effects of social, economic, and environmental conditions that increase harm to specific populations.
The gendered dimension intensifies the ethical urgency. Women often serve as primary caregivers and household food purchasers, meaning they shoulder the responsibility of navigating constrained food environments. During pregnancy, their dietary exposures directly affect fetal development, transforming structural inequities into intergenerational consequences. Ethical analysis must therefore consider not only individual autonomy but also structural conditions that limit meaningful choice. When healthy food is geographically inaccessible or economically unattainable, “choice” becomes constrained by circumstance rather than freely exercised.
Environmental racism in urban food systems illustrates how structural inequities infiltrate daily life in subtle but consequential ways. What initially appears to be an issue of individual food choice is better understood as the result of historical policy decisions, failures in environmental regulation, and unequal access to healthy food infrastructure. Food quality disparities and environmental contamination disproportionately burden underserved urban communities, and women experience these burdens in uniquely embodied ways through reproductive health risks and maternal health disparities. Recognizing these layered vulnerabilities highlights the ethical obligation to address structural inequalities that shape health outcomes. In confronting the intersection of food, gender, and environmental racism, we are compelled to ask not only what is safe to eat, but who is allowed access to safety in the first place.
For more information about the prize, past winners, and submission requirements for 2027, please visit the Chynn Ethics Paper Prize webpage. The deadline to submit is TBD and is open to ALL undergraduates.
Bianca Barreiro is a member of Fordham University’s class of 2026 pursuing a General Science and a minor in Bioethics.
References
Agyeman, Julian, et al. “Environmental Justice.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources,
vol. 32, 2007, pp. 243–269.
Bullard, Robert D. Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality. 3rd ed.,
Westview Press, 2000.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States.”
CDC, 2019, http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Mercury and Pregnancy.” CDC,
http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/mercury.
Luna, Florencia. “Identifying and Evaluating Layers of Vulnerability in Health Research.”
Bioethics, vol. 33, no. 3, 2019, pp. 375–382.
United States Department of Agriculture. “Hormones in Poultry.” USDA Food Safety and
Inspection Service, http://www.fsis.usda.gov.
Walker, Gordon. “Environmental Justice, Impact Assessment and the Politics of Knowledge.”
Health & Place, vol. 16, no. 3, 2010, pp. 452–460.
The Ethics and Society Blog 