Researchers in southern California explored that question in a new paper published in the Journal of Adolescent Health.  They teamed up with the community-based group Youth, Family, School and Community Partnership in Action to recruit about 100 adolescents aged 12 to 21 years to participate in the study.  Each participant made two restaurant visits, one to a McDonald’s and one to a Subway restaurant, on predesignated dates and times.  They were instructed to order a meal, turn in their receipts (on-site) to a research assistant and complete a short written survey.  The researchers prepared food intake surveys for each participant’s meal in order to calculate calorie intake and other nutritional information about the meal purchased.

The mean age of the participants was 16.9 years, 61 percent were males and 47 percent were Asian.   The adolescents purchased 1,038 calories of food at McDonald’s, compared to 955 calories at Subway.  The overall 83-calorie difference was not statistically significant.  At McDonald’s, the participants purchased more grams of carbohydrates and sugars, and fewer grams of protein.  There was no difference, however, in the amount of fat or saturated fat purchased at the two restaurants.   The difference in price of the meals was statistically significant with the McDonald’s meal averaging $4.46 and the Subway meal averaging $6.14.

The authors conclude:

“the true measure of a healthy restaurant is whether people actually consume a healthy meal there.”

Both McDonald’s and Subway offer less calorie-dense options, but making healthier choices requires mindful, not mindless eating.  After all, Jared Fogle  lost 245 pounds eating Subway sandwiches and went on to become the company’s spokesperson.   The Jared lunch consisted of a modest 6-inch sub (about 250 calories) and 120-calorie bag of baked potato chips.  That’s fewer than 400 calories.   I guess the teenagers in the study who racked up 955 calories at Subway were going for the footlongs, smeared with mayo and layered with cheese.

The residents’ quest for answers took the form of a petition delivered in late 2009 to the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, and the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission.  The residents’ group, called Battlement Concerned Citizens, urged the government officials:

“to defer any permitting decisions related to natural gas exploration and/or production within the Planned Unit Development of Battlement Mesa until a thorough study of public health, safety and welfare concerns associated with urban natural gas development has been completed.”

BCC specifically asked County and State officials to conduct a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) before any special use permit for natural gas exploration and development was approved within the Battlement Mesa community.  BCC had done their research on HIAs, knowing they are a systematic tool for assessing the potential health consequences of a proposed policy, program, or project.  Some of the gas wells would be about 500 feet from homes.

Within a few months, the Garfield County Department of Public Health was collaborating with the Colorado School of Public Health (CSPH) to develop the HIA.   Funding was provided by Garfield County and a $150,000 grant from the Pew Charitable Trusts.  A forthcoming paper in the American Journal of Public Health written by the CSPH team reports the findings of the assessment, and then the fallout.

First the findings.  Based on extensive input from the community and other stakeholders, eight major areas of public health concern were identified:

• health effects from air emissions
• water contamination
• truck traffic
• noise and light pollution
• accidents and malfunctions
• strain on healthcare system
• psychosocial stress associated with community changes, and
• housing value depression

Based on the research team’s review of the available data, they concluded that

“air pollutant levels were likely to increase in Battlement Mesa as a result of the natural gas development project.”

They noted that residents in an adjacent community with current gas-well development have reported short-term symptoms (e.g., headaches, upper respiratory irritation) during “odor events” that occur with gas well operations.  In addition, they projected a substantial increase in vehicle traffic.  Based on information provided by the gas developer, residents could expect an additional 40 to 280 truck trips per day to each gas well pad.  In addition, about 120 to 150 workers would commute into the community.  The authors write:

“Because Battlement Mesa does not house other industrial activities and commercial activities are minimal, this change in traffic patterns would represent a consequential change.”

The CSPH researchers also projected that noise levels would increase during the well-development period and could result in health impacts, such as sleep disturbances, fatigue, mood changes, and impaired condition.  Residents’ concerns about property value declines were found to be grounded in fact.  The researchers referred to a Garfield County specific study which reported an average 15% decline in property values during well development, which persisted for two years after completion of the wells.  “Declining land values,” the CSPH authors wrote, “could cause residents psychosocial stress,” and its health effects “should not be discounted.”

In contrast, they did not think exposure to contaminated drinking water was likely given the community’s source water is located upstream of the project.  The researchers concluded that industry-related chemical or waste spills would be unlikely, as would fires and explosions.  They did not project measurable increases in crime, sexually-transmitted diseases, or school enrollment that could be attributed alone to the gas development project.

Second, the fallout.

A first draft of the HIA was available for stakeholder input in Fall 2010.   Interest in the document was intense, not just from the Battlement Concerned Citizens’ group or residents of Garfield County, but nationwide.   The HIA was the first of its kind related to natural gas development.  A broader group of interests, including an industry trade group, “caused the focus of the HIA to shift from addressing possible exposures to parties sparring over risk assessment methods,” as the CSPH authors write in their paper.  A process and document that was supposed to help local officials make an informed decision turned into a battle before the Garfield County Commission.

NPR’s Elizabeth Shogren reported in May 2012 on the HIA fallout.  The West Slope Colorado Oil & Gas Association said the CSPH researchers “used what we believe was questionable data, at best.”  A long-time Garfield County Commissioner told Shogren:

“this is a football in the arena of global warming and anti-oil and gas, or anti-environment. We said enough is enough, people.”

The County Commission voted to leave the HIA as an unfinished document and to end the project.  Regardless, the information contained in the draft HAI is valuable.  It illustrates a site-specific and systematic way to evaluate potential health impacts of a proposed policy.  I’ve no doubt that the residents of Battlement Mesa are better informed about the magnitude and severity of the likely health impacts related to natural gas development in their community, than they were before the HIA was developed.  To their credit, the Garfield County Department of Environmental Health has the draft HIA and other project documents on its website.

• OSHA projected it would issue in March a final rule to enhance protections for workers involved in electric power transmission and distribution.  It’s still “under review” at the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) and has been for more than 10 months.
• MSHA suggested it would issue this month a final rule for proximity detection devices to protect underground coal miners from crushing injuries.   Since 2010, at least 85 mine workers have been injured, including eight fatally, from incidents involving underground equipment used at the coal face.   MSHA has yet to submit the final rule to OIRA for review.
• OSHA indicated it would be convening in April a group of small business representatives to review a draft rule on protections for healthcare and social services workers from infectious diseases, such as tuberculosis.  That review panel has yet to be convened.
• OSHA projected that two proposed regulations, one on respirable crystalline silica and the other to modernize the tracking of work-related injury and illness, would be issued this month.  Publication of those proposals would trigger the beginning of the public comment process.  Both of these regulatory initiatives have been stuck at OIRA for review.  The OSHA proposal on crystalline silica has been “under review” for 26 months and injury tracking proposal has racked up 18 months of “review.”
• MSHA indicated it would issue in June a final rule to reduce miners’ exposure to respirable coal dust in order to prevent black lung and other respiratory diseases.  MSHA has yet to submit the final rule to OIRA for review.

As I recapped for myself this lack of progress, fresh on my mind are the reflections of Georgetown law professor Lisa Heinzerling in Inside EPA: A Former Insider’s Reflection on the Relationship between the Obama EPA and the Obama White House.  She explains how OIRA violates Executive Order 12866 and abuses its power so that some regulatory packages simply, as she says,“wither quietly on the vine” and die.  I wonder if that’s the fate of these worker safety rules?

Heinzerling served from January 2009 to December 2010 as a senior Obama Administration official at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).   I wrote last month about some of Heinzerling’s initial remarks, but this longer paper is more illuminating and disturbing.    Heinzerling writes from her experience environmental protection rules, but I fear the “wither on the vine” tactics are at play with worker safety regulations.    How is it that OSHA’s proposed rule on crystalline silica is “under review” for more than two years?

OIRA’s review of agency rules is supposed to last no longer than 90 days, with one 30-day extension permitted (in writing) if agreed to by the agency head and the director of the Office of Management and Budget.   The requirement is laid out plainly in Executive Order 12866.   Heinzerling explains how it actually works.  She draws on her own experience, as well as what is now in print by President Obama’s former OIRA director Cass Sunstein.  Heinzerling writes:

“Sunstein explains that, in fact, the prevailing understanding of EO 12,866 holds that an agency head may, on her own, request an indefinite extension of OIRA review.   This would mean that neither the requirement that the OMB Director agree “in writing” to the extension nor the requirement that the extension be once, for 30 days only, holds under the present understanding of EO 12,866.  This would, in turn, mean that if an agency head asks for an extension, there actually is no deadline for completing OIRA review.  This remodeling of EO 12,866’s structure on the timelines for review is news in and of itself.  Many outside observers believe that there is in fact a deadline for OIRA review.  OIRA itself encourages this (mis)understanding by displaying 90 days as a timing benchmark on its regulatory dashboard.”

“But it is worse than that.  It is worse because the way that agency heads come to request extended review, in my experience, is that OIRA calls an official at the agency and asks the agency to ask for an extension.  It is clear, in such a phone call, that the agency is not to decline to ask for such an extension.  Thus, not only is there no deadline for OIRA review, but OIRA itself controls the agency’s “requests” for extensions.  In this way, it comes to pass that rules can remain at OIRA for years.”

So technically, the reason that OSHA’s silica proposed rule is still being “reviewed” at OIRA after 26 months, and its proposal on tracking injuries is still there after 18 months, is because the OSHA’s chief requested it?  What a bunch of baloney.  While the White House allows OIRA’s abuse of power to go on, public protections suffer.  The White House knows how OIRA operates.  They obviously like it that way.

I won’t be holding my breath any longer to see much progress in Obama’s second term on new worker safety regulations.

Equally disturbing is the scant number of workplace safety inspectors in these States.  The 51-page section entitled “State Profiles,” provides the painful details on how few public resources are directed to ensuring workplaces are safe.  There are only 8 inspectors for all of Wyoming.  That’s 8 inspectors to cover an area that exceeds 97,000 square miles and is home to 25,000 workplaces.   There are also only 8 inspectors for the entire State of North Dakota.   There are more than 27,000 workplaces in North Dakota, employing about 379,000 workers.  Egads!  Montana has nearly 42,000 workplaces and only 5 OSHA inspectors.  Five inspectors??

The report notes that the United Nation’s International Labour Organization suggests a benchmark for industrialized countries of one workplace safety inspector for every 10,000 workers.   Yet,

“in the states of Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Texas and West Virginia the ratio of inspectors to employees is greater than 1 per 100,000 workers.”

U.S. workers deserve better than that.

For the one-year period beginning October 1, 2011 and ending September 30, 2012, federal OSHA and the States that operate their own OSHA programs conducted about 92,000.   That’s just 1 percent of the nation’s 9 million workplaces.   Depending on the State, it would take inspectors between 30 years and 288 years to inspect each worksite just once.  The AFL-CIO report explains:

“Since the passage of the OSH Act the number of workplaces and number of workers under OSHA’s jurisdiction has more than doubled, while at the same time the number of OSHA inspectors has been reduced.  At the peak of federal OSHA staffing in 1980, there were 1,469 federal OSHA inspectors (including supervisors)… by 2011, there were only 1,059 federal OSHA inspectors (including supervisors).”

That’s a 28% reduction in the number of workplace safety inspectors.   Is it any wonder that OSHA hadn’t inspected the fertilizer facility in West, Texas since 1985?

When safety inspectors conduct inspections and identify hazards, the penalties proposed don’t pack much punch.   The average proposed penalty for a serious violation (i.e., one that poses a substantial probability of death or serious physical harm) was just $2,343 when the inspection was conducted by a federal OSHA inspector.  Worse yet is the record in the States that operate their own OSHA programs.  In these States, the average proposed penalty for a serious violation was just $974, with some States skewing that average.  The report notes that federal OSHA adopted a policy in October 2010 which increased its average penalty amount from $1,052 to the $2,343 figure.  More than two years later, however, federal OSHA has not formally directed the State OSHA programs to adopt the policy.  On top of this, the maximum penalty amount set by Congress for a serious OSHA violation is $7,000, but the agency’s current penalty policy, ensures most employers—-despite their violations of the law—will not receive a penalty close to the $7,000 maximum.

U.S. workers deserve better protections than that.

This 2013 edition of the Death on the Job report indicates that the number of willful violations issued by federal OSHA decreased between fiscal year 2011 and 2012, from 572 to 424.   We don’t know whether that means there are actually fewer employers who have been found willfully violating workplace safety laws, or whether the Labor Department’s attorneys are just more reluctant to allow OSHA inspectors to classify violations as willful.

It’s the 22nd year the AFL-CIO has prepared its Death on the Job report.  The 200-page document includes data through 2011 (and in some instances 2012) and offers dozens of tables showing the history of OSHA funding, inspections, and penalties, as well as work-related injury and fatality rates.  Several tables profile the injury and fatality experience of Latino and other immigrant workers.  Fatalities in 2011 among foreign-born workers from traumatic injuries increased from 798 in 2010 to 843 deaths in 2011.  Twenty-two percent of the deaths occurred in the construction industry.  Another table in the report highlights data from the 1,544 inspections conducted in fiscal year 2012 following a worker’s death.  More of these post-fatality inspections were conducted in Texas (187 cases) and California (151 cases) than any other States.   Overall, the total average penalty assessed in worker fatality cases is less than $5,200.

The Death on the Job report is a great resource on the state of occupational safety and health in the U.S.   The data and statistics help make the case why U.S. workers deserve much better protections than they are getting.

“I remember when dentists didn’t wear gloves, or masks, or eye protection.”

I not only recall the bare hands of my dentist circa 1970-1980, I also remember the hullabaloo from dentists when new federal regulations were proposed in 1989 requiring them to provide such protection for their hygienists.   At the time, the term “AIDS’ was less than 10 years old, and exposure to HIV in the U.S. was considered a death sentence.

The OSHA proposal was based in part on guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on methods to reduce healthcare workers’ exposure to bloodborne pathogens, such as HIV and Hepatitis B.  The guidelines embraced the concept of “universal precautions” to protect against exposure to blood and other body fluids.   The CDC noted that in dental settings, saliva should be considered a hazardous body fluid because it is likely to be contaminated with blood during typical dental procedures.  The dentists scoffed.  No, they did more than scoff.

The sky was falling, and it would be the end of dental care as we knew it.  Children would be frightened by hygienists in surgical masks.   Gloves would hinder a dentist’s fine motor skills.   The excuses went on and on.   The letters flooded OSHA’s offices.  I worked at OSHA during the time and remember it well.  We answered letter after letter from Members of Congress who were writing on behalf of the dentists in their districts.   Why was OSHA killing the tooth fairy?

It was ridiculous at the time, and looking back, still ridiculous.

The American Dental Association (ADA) was leading the charge against OSHA’s bloodborne pathogens rule.  The ADA argued, among other things, that there was little evidence to show that dentists or hygienists were at risk of exposure to bloodborne pathogens.  “I don’t have any hygienists who’ve developed AIDS or contracted hepatitis,” the dentists would say.   Even if they admitted that they or their employees were at risk of exposure to bloodborne pathogens, the ADA insisted that dentists were highly trained professionals.  They could decide for themselves and for their employees if, or when gloves, masks for goggles should be worn.  Dentists didn’t need the government telling them how to run their businesses.

The ADA pulled out all the stops to try to avoid the OSHA regulation.   They participated actively in the public rulemaking process, organized letter writing campaigns and sought Congressional intervention.  In an op-ed published in the New York Times on November 12, 1989, New Haven, CT periodontist Avrum Goldstein expressed his opposition this way:

“…these regulations will bring about changes in the dentist-patient relationship and make it more difficult to practice dentistry.  By its nature, dentistry is an intimate occupation.  The dentist works within an inch of a patient’s head, probing sensitive, often tender areas of the patient’s body.  The mouth embodies our ability to smile, kiss, talk and eat—all very emotional qualities.  Patients needs a warm and trusting relationship with their dentist to help overcome fears and make necessary dentistry possible.  It will be more difficult to establish this relationship when the dentist is gowned, shielded, and masked.  [These barriers] will have a profound effect on the relationship between the dentist and patient.”

But shielding against deadly viruses with common sense protections would eventually trump arguments about emotions.  When the rule was finalized in December 1991, the ADA exercised their right under the OSH Act to challenge the rule before the U.S. Court of Appeals.  The court didn’t buy their arguments either.   In January 1993, the OSHA rule was upheld and would apply to dental practices.

Seeing my dental hygienists snazzy eye protection and matching gloves, the ADA’s opposition to OSHA’s bloodborne pathogens rule now seems so ludicrous.  But their claims about the demise of dentistry because of OSHA were just another in a long list of over-reaction to proposed worker safety regulation.  Some can probably be attributed to innocent misunderstanding, but others are orchestrated campaigns that spread false information to rally opposition to a new public protection.   (One recent example of the latter was the Farm Bureau’s attack on the Labor Department’s rule to protect young workers employed on farms from certain hazardous tasks.   Sadly, even the Obama Administration caved to their false claims.)

The Cry Wolf Project has compiled loads of quotes from industry representatives and others who alleged the terrible harm that will come from regulating wages, auto emissions, pharmaceuticals and other hazards.   Some date back decades, others are more recent.  A few key themes emerge from all the wolf cries: regulations are burdensome, costly and unnecessary.

During my next visit to the dentist, I’m going to ask him flat out:  are the steps you take to protect yourself and your employees from bloodborne pathogens burdensome, costly or unnecessary?

“It’s a local up,” DPS Director Steve McCraw said during a legislative hearing in Austin. “It’s not a state down.”

The State DPS officials also noted that local fire marshals are charged with inspecting fertilizer plants, but as the Houston Chronicle’s report from the same hearing explains,

West, Texas depended on a volunteer fire department, [it] did not have a fire marshal.

According to Jeremy Schwartz of the Austin American-Statesman, one State official said there are 41 facilities in Texas that blend large amounts of ammonium nitrate.  He added:

“It became clear during the two-hour hearing that no state agency—eight testified at the hearing—- is charged with specifically regulating safety at chemical plants.  Rather, state agencies focus on air emissions, fertilizer quality and preventing theft.”

The chairman of the Committee, State Rep. Joe Pickett (D-El Paso) noted that “lawmakers have been inundated with questions from constituents in the blast’s aftermath.”   He also predicted that the magnitude of the disaster deserves national attention to ensure communities are protected from chemical hazards.   U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who chairs the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, announced that she intends to hold a hearing to look into the West Fertilizer disaster.  The Senator’s announcement said:

“We must ensure that facilities like the one in West are complying with chemical safety laws.  We will look at how the laws on the books are being enforced and whether there is a need to strengthen them.”

As the official investigations proceed, I hope we learn more about whether all the responsibility fell just “to the locals.”

This week’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report describes cases of obliterative bronchiolitis diagnosed in two individuals who worked at a Texas coffee-processing company.    Bronchiolitis obliterans is a rare and serious obstructive lung disease with no cure, except for a lung transplant.   One of the individuals, a 34 year old woman (non-smoker), worked at several jobs in the plant, including the “flavoring room.”  The report explains:

“There, whole roasted coffee beans were mixed with liquid flavorings in an open process, ground, and packaged. Her primary tasks included operating the grinding and packing machines for these flavored coffee beans.”

The other individual, a 39 year old man (non-smoker) also worked in the flavoring room.

“His job involved open bench-top weighing of liquid flavorings, which he poured into barrels of roasted coffee beans.  A machine rotated these open barrels while he stood nearby to monitor the process.”

This is not the first time we’ve heard of workers exposed to flavoring agents and then developing this irreversible lung disease.  Not quite 10 years ago, another MMWR described cases of bronchiolitis obliterans in workers who’d been employed at microwave popcorn manufacturing plant in Missouri.  They too were exposed to the flavoring chemicals, including a ketone called diacetyl.

The workers’ illnesses didn’t attract much attention until Denver resident Wayne Watson developed the same disease.  He never worked at a microwave popcorn factory, but developed it by inhaling several times a day the hot butter-smelling vapors from his favorite snack.   Popcorn manufacturers quickly removed the butter-flavoring agent diacetyl from their microwave products, but some of the substitutes may pose similar risk of respiratory damage (see studies: here, here)  A 2013 study found workers at the microwave popcorn plants had a higher rates of respiratory disease mortality than the general population.

Now come this report of the same disabling respiratory disease in other workers exposed to flavoring agents.   The coffee-bean production workers first developed a cough and shortness of breath on exertion.  Treatment with steroids did not resolve their symptoms and eventually, both were referred to a pulmonologist.  Additional testing and lung biopsies resulted in the diagnosis of obliterative bronchiolitis related to their work.   The authors of the MMWR piece write:

“Especially of note is the short employment tenure of affected workers and their apparent rapid decline in lung function.  Although these patients were symptomatic within <18 months of work, their illness initially was unrecognized, leading to a diagnostic delay of 8–14 months.  This is consistent with the natural history of obliterative bronchiolitis, which differs significantly from much chronic obstructive lung disease, where decline is slow and risk factors more apparent.”

The authors correctly report that there is no specific federal workplace safety regulation designed to protect workers exposed to diacetyl or other flavoring agents.   There wasn’t one 10 years ago when the microwave popcorn workers were afflicted, and there’s still not one on the books.

After the popcorn workers’ lung cases came to light, worker organizations in July 2006 petitioned Labor Secretary Elaine Chao for an emergency standard from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to protect workers from the flavoring hazard.  The petition was denied.  Shortly after taking office in March 2009, Obama’s Labor Secretary Hilda Solis suggested that OSHA would move expeditiously to protect workers from this hazard.  She announced:

“I am alarmed that workers exposed to food flavorings containing diacetyl may continue to be at risk of developing a potentially fatal lung disease. Exposure to this harmful chemical already has been linked to the deaths of three workers.  These deaths are preventable, and it is imperative that the Labor Department move quickly to address exposure to food flavorings containing diacetyl…”

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) prepared a draft risk assessment and technical document to assist OSHA in developing a proposed rule.  Although the NIOSH document was peer reviewed about a year ago, OSHA’s not on a fast track to address the hazard of diacetyl or other food flavoring agents with a new regulation.  The agency’s most recent agenda of regulatory priorities lists this hazard under the category “long-term action.”

But even without a federal regulation, shouldn’t the users of these flavoring agents be aware of the inhalation risk for their workers?  Didn’t coffee bean processors read or hear the coverage about popcorn workers’ lung and its relationship to butter flavor??  Don’t the firms that sell these flavoring agents, such as Flavor & Fragrance Specialties Inc., Carmi Flavor and Fragrance Co. Inc. and Mission Flavors & Fragrances Inc., post warnings on their products about the health risks of inhalation exposure?  What have the flavor manufacturers done to ensure that users of their products are not harmed by them?

And then there’s the Food and Drug Administration.  Diacetyl and other flavoring agents are technically regulated by FDA as food additives.  FDA takes a hands-off view about these flavoring agents because they carry a long-standing designation “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS).   But that GRAS label pertains only to the flavoring additive when eaten.  For workers exposed to these compounds in food manufacturing—from microwave popcorn and coffee beans, to snack food, candy and dog food—-it’s more clear than ever that flavor additives of this sort are anything but safe.

Opponents say the proposal will do little to improve food safety, at the same time reducing USDA’s ranks of poultry inspectors and shifting their food-safety inspection duties to the poultry producers.  Without those pesky government inspectors examining the poultry carcasses, the companies will be allowed to increase production line speeds up to 175 birds per minute.   Congressional Quarterly reports that Vilsack acknowledged that concerns have been raised about worker safety issues related to the program and said “we intend to address those concerns.”

Similarly, the  Gadsden (AL) Times, reports that USDA’s under secretary for food safety, Dr. Elisabeth Hagen says they have consulted with the Labor Department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration to ensure the rule “doesn’t have unintended consequences.”   Hagen said she would “never put forward a rule that I thought would increase risk or reduce protections for anybody,” the paper reported.

Short of scrapping the provision to increase the line speeds—the giant carrot in the regulation promised to poultry producers—-I’m curious to learn how USDA officials will address the adverse consequences for poultry workers if the new inspection system is put in place.   Is it wise for me to take Secretary Vilsack at his word that they’ll address the worker safety concerns?

As we’ve written before (here) as have others (here, here, here) the production process in many of these plants is already grueling for workers on line.  USDA’s proposal will simply make matters worse.  The disturbing reality came to light in new report “Unsafe at these speeds: Alabama’s poultry industry and its disposable workers,” released by the Southern Poverty Law Center and Alabama Appleseed. It’s based on interviews with 302 workers currently or previously employed in Alabama’s poultry industry, including the familiar companies named Tyson Foods, Pilgrim’s Pride, Wayne Farms, Koch Foods, AlaTrade Foods, Cagle’s and Equity Group.  There are about 25 major poultry processing plants in Alabama, and the survey participants worked in 20 different plants.   Here’s some of what you’ll read in the report:

“The processing line that whisks birds through the plant moves at a punishing speed. Over three-quarters of workers said that the speed makes their work more dangerous. It is a pre-dominant factor in the most common type of injuries, called musculoskeletal disorders. But if the line seems to move at a pace designed for machines rather than people, it should come as no surprise. Plant workers, many whom are immigrants, are often treated as disposable resources by their employers. Threats of deportation and firing are frequently used to keep them silent.”

And,

“Nearly three-quarters of the poultry workers interviewed for this report described suffering some type of significant work-related injury or illness.  …Poultry workers often endure debilitating pain in their hands, gnarled fingers, chemical burns, and respiratory problems – tell-tale signs of repetitive motion injuries, such as carpal tunnel syndrome, and other ailments that flourish in these plants.”

And,

“It’s a world where employees are fired for work-related injuries or even for seeking medical treatment from someone other than the company nurse or doctor. In this report, they describe being discouraged from reporting work-related injuries, enduring constant pain and even choosing to urinate on themselves rather than invite the wrath of a supervisor by leaving the processing line for a restroom break.”

And,

“Workers would process 30,000 to 60,000 birds per shift as they raced to keep pace with the mechanized line. If a chicken became lodged in the machinery, the line would stop so it could be dislodged.  Hurt workers couldn’t count on the same mercy.  The processing line never slowed or stopped for them.”

Although this report’s focus is Alabama workers, I have no reason to believe that their situation is much different than poultry plant workers in other States.  Their experiences, in fact, are strikingly similar to what we read in the Charlotte (NC) Observer’s 2008 series The Cruelest Cuts about workers in North Carolina’s poultry industry.

I hope that Alabama Appleseed and the Southern Poverty Law Center sent a personal copy to Secretary Vilsack and his under secretary for food safety Dr. Elisabeth Hagen.  The voices of poultry workers comes through loud and clear to explain how the speed of the production line can gravely affect their health.

It doesn’t take more than a moment of thought to realize how the USDA’s proposal to change the poultry inspection system will make matters worse.  Much worse.

That’s the same purpose of a small program within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).  Since 1998, Congress has appropriated funds to NIOSH for a “Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program.”   Its purpose is to “examines line-of-duty-deaths or on duty deaths of fire fighters to assist fire departments, fire fighters, the fire service and others to prevent similar fire fighter deaths in the future.”   Each year, about 100 U.S. professional and volunteers die on-the-job.

The program’s website contains nearly 500 investigation reports, dating back to 1998, of firefighter fatalities from all 50 States and the District of Columbia.    The incidents involve fuel tanker explosions, aerial ladder collapses, and drownings, as well as heart attacks and motor vehicle crashes and roll overs.  Each describes the circumstances leading to the firefighters’ deaths, and offers recommendations to enhance fire departments operating procedures and training.  For example, NIOSH investigated the deaths in September 2011 of two volunteer firefighters in South Dakota who were attempting to extinguish a fire in a coal storage silo.  In their attempt to apply water to the fire, the silo exploded.   The fire department didn’t fully comprehend the unique hazards of oxygen-limiting silos.   Among one of the recommendations made by NIOSH was for fire departments to conduct pre-emergency planning for all types of silos located within their jurisdictions.

As I browsed through dozens of the NIOSH firefighter fatality investigation reports, I noticed that certain recommendations kept appearing in the reports.  Specifically, that fire departments should implement a strong occupational safety and health program such as the one outlined in the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1500.  Among other things, the program is designed to improve  risk management, training and competency in fireground operations, tactics, and equipment.  Another key recommendation cited in previous reports involves the development, implementation and enforcement of a written Incident Management System (NFPA 1561).  Importantly, the incident commander continually assesses the “risk versus gain” of the operations.   According to NFPA 1500

“Where there is no potential to save lives, the risk to the fire department members must be evaluated in proportion to the ability to save property of value. When there is no ability to save lives or property, there is no justification to expose fire department members to any avoidable risk, and defensive fire suppression operations are the appropriate strategy.”

The staff from NIOSH’s Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program will be conducting an investigation into the factors that contributed to the deaths of the 10 volunteer fire fighters at the West Fertilizer plant.  Their report, along with that of the U.S. Chemical Safety Board, will provide recommendations on ways to prevent similar catastrophes.   The challenge for policy makers will be taking the bold steps to learn from the fallen.

(1) The bill would create a new visa program (a W-visa) for low-skilled immigrant workers.  (See Subtitle G at page 775 (here))  The number of visas, types of jobs eligible and in what geographic location does a labor need exist would be determined by a new agency called the Bureau of Immigration and Labor Market Research.   Employers would register with the Secretary of Labor to become eligible to hire under the W-visa program.   Unlike current law, the Secretary of Labor may deny an employer’s application, however, if in the last two years, the employer has:

• violated regulations to protect children and teen workers from dangerous occupations and tasks  which resulted in injury or death of a youngster;
• repeatedly or willfully violated minimum wage and/or overtime rules; or
• repeatedly or willfully violated federal or State OSHA regulations that lead to a worker injury or death.

The employer would remain ineligible for three years.  Employers convicted of human trafficking would be permanently ineligible to register to hire under the W-visa program.

(2)  Title III of the bill (beginning at page 395 (here)) is targeted at companies that unlawfully employ aliens.  It’s a hefty part of the legislation, covering more than 100 pages.   A provision entitled “unlawful and abusive employment” indicates:

“…any person who, during any 12-month period, knowingly employs or hires, recruits, or refers for employment 10 or more individuals within the United States” AND violates OSHA’s requirement to provide a safe workplace (Section 5(a)) or minimum wage or prevailing wage requirements, could be subject to up to 10 years in prison.

(3) Section 3105 (at page 512 (here)) would enhance employment protections for authorized immigrant workers to prevent discrimination based on an individual’s citizenship status.

(4) Section 4221 (at page 695 (here)) would give new authority to the Secretary of Labor to investigate complaints about H-1B employers, such as software and other high-tech firms.

As I read through the entire bill, I’ll be paying close attention to provisions designed to remedy the many abuses in the current guest worker program, including solutions offered in the International Labor Recruitment Working Group’s blueprint.   For now, I’ll give credit to the Senate sponsors of the bill and their staff.  They’ve helped move our nation closer to a time when unauthorized workers can come out from the shadows, and exercise their rights to fair wages and safe working conditions.