Close
today i learned (til)

Mann V. Ford: Colorful Contamination

April 18, 2024

There are a variety of car brands you see on the street as you walk around Atlanta. From Acura to Telsa, you can find every make and model of just about every car you can imagine. However, one all-American car brand stands out: Ford. The Model T was one of the first cars that was accessible for the common man to purchase. However, the Ford Motor Company has a dark history as well. Some of this history is outlined in the documentary Mann V. Ford, which was released in 2011. The documentary works to outline the improper waste management of the Ford Motor Company and the lasting impact it has had on the land and the health of the nearby Ramapough Natives. This review of the documentary will hopefully convince you to watch it and hear directly from the people impacted by the unethical behavior of Ford. 

Chief Dwayne C. Perry of the Ramapough Nation

The Ramapough Natives are a group of indigenous Americans who live in the New York-New Jersey area of the United States. A major community of these natives live in Ringwood, New Jersey, which is also where a major landfill was located. From 1967 to 1974, Ford dumped discarded car parts, solvents, and paint into this landfill (Campbell, 2005). Much of this paint and waste contained hazardous materials such as lead and arsenic, which are incredibly toxic to humans. In fact, exposure to lead has been shown to cause damage in almost every system in the body, but most specifically the central nervous system, the kidneys, and the blood (Tong et al., 2000). These health complications were very common among the Ramapough People as a result of the negligence of Ford Motor Company. There is an increased prevalence of lung and reproductive cancer among the Ramapough people who grew up in the area around The Ringwood Landfill (Meltzer et al., 2020). 

Image of warning outside of the Ringwood Superfund Site warning people of exposure to hazardous materials

Now that the surrounding circumstances have been laid out, it is important to discuss the reason why the documentary is called Mann V. Ford. In 2005, Wayne Mann, a member of the Ramapough Nation, represented the people of his community in a lawsuit against the Ford Motor Company, which is where the name was born. I won’t go into enough details to spoil the outcome, but I will say that the Ramapough People are still struggling with the aftermath of their land being poisoned. Despite the EPA classifying the site as a Superfund, the land is still under surveillance for things such as heavy metals. I cannot speak on behalf of the native people, which is why I implore you to watch the documentary and listen to their lived experiences. This case is a fantastic representation of the inequality that is associated with environmental health and safety. Although it may not impact you directly, it is important to be aware of the plight thousands of people face on a daily basis. 

 

Sources

Campbell, M. B. M. (2005). Ringwood, Passaic County Ringwood Mines/Landfill Former Superfund Site Petition March 24, 2005.

Meltzer, G., Avenbuan, O., Wu, F., Shah, K., Chen, Y., Mann, V., & Zelikoff, J. T. (2020). The Ramapough Lunaape Nation: Facing Health Impacts Associated with Proximity to a Superfund Site. Journal of Community Health, 45(6), 1196-1204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-020-00848-2

Tong, S., Schirnding, Y. E. v., & Prapamontol, T. (2000). Environmental lead exposure: a public health problem of global dimensions. Bulletin of the world health organization, 78(9), 1068-1077.

0Likes
About Author

You May Also Like

Field Notes, today i learned (til)
How Corals Changed My Life
today i learned (til)
Navigating the Cosmic Currents: The Great Attractor
today i learned (til)
An Egg-istential Question
today i learned (til)
Privacy in the Age of Surveillance

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.