CalOSHA Standards Board Chickens Out of Issuing Emergency Temporary Standard for Popcorn Lung

As long as I've been in this business, there are some things I just don't understand. Like this: Earlier this week, the CalOSHA standards board decided not to issue an emergency temporary standard to protect workers from "popcorn lung." Instead, they decided to send the issue to an advisory committee.

The chemical at question here is diacetyl, the chemical butter flavoring that wreaks havoc on workers lungs. It's a chemical that causes bronchiolitis obliterans a disease that obliterates the lungs bronchioles (the lung's tiniest airways), resulting in "astonishingly grotesque" effects on the lungs, "the worst" that this nation's leading experts have ever seen. Its effects have been "likened to inhaling acid."

California, where health officials have detected a number of cases of bronchiolitis obliterans, established a "Special Emphasis Program" in the roughly 30 manufacturing facilities that use diacetyl. The agency is monitoring workers for signs of the disease and educating employers about how to prevent overexposure.

But cases continued to turn up. Just last week, the Sacramento Bee reported that

An ongoing health investigation of California's flavor manufacturing industry has found another six workers who have lost nearly all use of their lungs.

The six are in addition to two cases that sparked the investigation nine months ago, according to the state's occupational health chief, Barbara Materna.

"Most of these workers are severely impaired, cannot work and suffer extreme shortness of breath on exertion," Materna wrote in a Jan. 11 report updating investigation results. "At least one is reported to be on a list for lung transplantation."

And last week George Washington University Professor David Michaels, on behalf of the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy (SKAPP), sent the Board additional evidence from an unpublished Dutch study reporting three cases of the rare lung disease among workers at a diacetyl factory.

Last August, the United Food and Commercial Workers and the California State AFL-CIO petitioned CalOSHA for an Emergency Temporary Standard to protect workers against the damaging lung disease caused by diacetyl. (In July, UFCW and the Teamsters petitioned federal OSHA for an emergency temporary standard.)

What's an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) and why is it so important to use it. Normal OSHA standards can take ten years or more from the time that OSHA decides to start working on them until they are actually issued. Most OSHA chemical standards date from the 1960's and, under the Bush administration, only one new chemical standard has been issued -- and that was done under court order.

But the Occupational Safety and Health Act states that if the Assistant Secretary determines that "employees are exposed to grave danger from exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful or from new hazards." OSHA also has to show that the ETS is "necessary to protect employees from such danger." The ETS serves as a proposed standard until the final standard is issued, which must be done within six months.

Sounds like diacetyl would be a prime candidate.

OSHA has rarely used this provision of the act, even in the rare case that the agency has issued an ETS, the courts have often overturned it. No successful ETS has been issued in over 25 years. Nevertheless, as UFCW Health and Safety Director Jackie Nowell told the CalOSHA Board, "If this doesn't rise to the need for an emergency standard, I don't know what does."

More insulting to workers afflicted with bronchiolitis obliterans are the excuses the Board members used to chicken out, according to the Cal-OSHA Reporter.

Board occupational health representative Jonathan Frisch, Ph.D, said "doing the speedy thing isn't necessarily the right thing." He and the other board members backed the decision to send the petition to advisory committee, which DOSH Acting Chief Len Welsh said would meet the first or second week of February. Frisch commented that it takes courage to "step back, even when people are hurt," if it's the right thing to do. "Let's take a hard look at the exposures that are going on."

Board Chair John MacLeod agreed. "We're in a groundbreaking situation," and it's important to develop good information, he said.

No, Doctor Frisch, it actually takes courage to do the right thing -- take immediate action to protect workers. Developing good information is important. But in this case it's possible to protect workers at the same time you develop good information. Isn't it better to err on the side of overprotection if the alternative is more dead workers?

As Dr. Michaels explains in the Pump Handle,

Regulators cannot wait for complete information before issuing rules to limit exposure to potentially toxic substances. Diacetyl poses the classic (but easily addressable) regulatory dilemma. The evidence for the toxicity of diacetyl is limited by an obvious problem: we do not have (and cannot have) controlled studies of humans exposed to diacetyl but to no other potential toxins. There are multiple chemical exposures at factories where diacetyl is used. Regulators must rely on these studies of the patterns of disease in workplaces, in addition to evidence gathered in experiments with laboratory animals.

It is hard to imagine what additional evidence could still be gathered on diacetyl. We will never find a workplace in which only diacetyl is present. The Dutch study comes close, since it deals with a diacetyl production plant rather than a plant producing multiple flavorings, but reluctant regulators could still argue for the presence of other confounding factors. The animal evidence is very strong. It is time to assume that diacetyl causes obstructive lung disease at extremely low levels and prevent all exposure – probably by banning it.

Meanwhile, OSHA has still not bothered to respond to the unions' petition -- almost 8 years after learning of the first cases of bronchiolitis obliterans.

Like I said, after all these years, there are still some things I just don't get.

More information on popcorn lung here in Confined Space and here from SKAPP.

Are Respirators Enough To Protect Workers Against Popcorn Lung?

Over 200 workers have filed lawsuits against artificial butter producers that use diacetyl, the chemical blamed for cause bronchiolitis obliterans, or popcorn lung, a deadly inflammation of the lungs. Dozens of those employees work at the ConAgra plant in Marion, Ohio.

ConAgra's Marion plant has taken action to prevent the disease, according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer:

Among Marion's workers, problems seem worst for those who mixed flavors from open containers in the plant's slurry room, where a 2003 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health investigation of the plant found high airborne concentrations of diacetyl.

A significant proportion of those who test-microwaved popcorn all day on the plant's quality control line also have difficulties, says Blake Dickson, a Cleveland-based attorney for Stevens, Miller, and more than a dozen other workers at the Ohio factory.

Upon learning of hazards associated with diacetyl, ConAgra installed a new ventilation system in the plant. It isolated the slurry room from the rest of the plant and now requires anyone who works with diacetyl to wear a respirator, says company spokeswoman Stephanie Childs.

"ConAgra has taken steps that go above and beyond NIOSH recommendations to protect employees' health," Childs said. She said diacetyl occurs naturally in butter and popcorn customers aren't exposed to it at harmful levels.

But are respirators enough? No, according to George Washington University Professor David Michaels and United Food and Commercial Workers Union official, Jackie Nowell:

David Michaels, who heads the George Washington University School of Public Health's Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy, calls diacetyl "extremely dangerous" and says it should be banned. He notes diacetyl was approved for food use based on studies that examined oral consumption, not inhalation.

"There is compelling evidence that it is dangerous in the workplace at low levels and there is no evidence that breathing diacetyl at home is safe," says Michaels, who has asked the Food and Drug Administration to revoke federal approval of diacetyl as a safe food ingredient and asked the Occupational Safety and Health Administration issue to emergency standards to protect workers who handle diacetyl. Both federal agencies are reviewing his requests.

Another federal agency with jurisdiction over diacetyl, the Environmental Protection Agency, has completed a study of airborne emissions from microwaved popcorn but won't release its results until next year, an agency spokeswoman said.

Jackie Nowell, who heads the United Food and Commercial Workers union's occupational safety and health office, agrees the substance should be banned. Because of its widespread use in food, she estimates tens of thousands of workers have been exposed. She fears they might not connect diacetyl to lung problems because the link hasn't been widely publicized.

Those who work on workplace safety issues are familiar with what's known as the industrial hygiene "hierarchy of controls" -- in other words, which controls are most effective and should be used first if possible.

First on the list of the hierarchy of controls is eliminating the toxic chemical or "substitution" -- replacing the hazardous chemical with one that's less hazardous. It's hard to be exposed to something if you've gotten rid of it. Between substitution and respirators are "engineering controls," such as local exhaust ventilation to suck the chemical out of the breathing area, or isolation or enclosing the process -- physically separating the chemical from the worker.

Last on the list is personal protective equipment like respirators -- they're uncomfortable to wear for long periods and often not very effective. In addition, with a chemical like diacetyl, where relatively little is known about what levels are dangerous, it's difficult to determine what kind of respirators should be used. In addition, proper respirator use requires fit testing, training and medical examination -- requirements that are often overlooked.

So, while ConAgra may sound like it's taking bold action to protect workers, it's actually using the weakest form of protection. And how ConAgra's spokeswoman can say the company is going "above and beyond" the NIOSH recommendations is a mystery to me. Here are the controls that NIOSH recommends:

In order of preference, according to standard occupational health practices,
NIOSH recommends that employers minimize occupational exposures to
flavorings or flavoring ingredients by:

• Substituting a material or materials that may be less hazardous, after carefully evaluating potential substitutes
• Using engineering controls such as closed systems, isolation, or ventilation
• Instituting administrative controls such as housekeeping and work practices
• Educating employers and employees to raise their awareness of potential hazards and controls
• Using personal protective equipment where needed as an adjunct to primary engineering or administrative controls
• Monitoring occupational exposures and the status of workers health, tracking potential symptoms or cases, and reporting such symptoms or cases to NIOSH and state health departments

Personal protective equipment falls pretty far down the list and should only be used "as an adjunct" to engineering and adminstrative controls. Nice try Con Agra, but if you really want to go "above and beyond" NIOSH, stop using diacetyl and provide some generous compensation to the workers suffering from popcorn lung. Now that might be something to brag about.

More Popcorn Lung Stories here.

New Blog: The Pump Handle

Unlike the dead tree media, we in the blogosphere welcome newcomers to our turf. One recent welcome addition to the public health section of blogdom is The Pump Handle:

a place for people interested in public health and the environment to discuss the issues that interest us, particularly when they’re not getting the treatment we think they deserve in the mainstream media.

The Pump Handle is a group blog, many of the contributors being my favorite people oft quoted in Confined Space: Dr. David Michaels and Celeste Monforton of George Washington University, Revere of Effect Measure, Drs. Richard Clapp (of IBM cancer study fame) and David Ozonoff, both of Boston University School of Public Health. And rounding off the bunch are Liz Borkowski works for the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy (SKAPP) and Susan Wood, PhD, is a Research Professor at George Washington University’s School of Public Health and Health Services.

But, of course, contributors are only as good as their contributions. And there are some pretty good ones. One recent post addresses the problems of "forgotten workers"

in those workplaces with the dirtiest jobs, where the lowest wages prevail, where many do not speak English, and where there is no union to defend their rights or speak for them.

David Michaels, who has written extensively on how corporate scientists "manufacture uncertainty" has a post about how the Global Warming deniers are using the same arguments that the tobacco industry used to "manufacture uncertainly" about whether smoking causes cancer.

Richard Clapp, who has done groundbreaking work on cancer among IBM workers (which I've written about here and here) has a post describing his fight with the publisher of Clinics in Occupational and Environmental Medicine and IBM to be able to publish the results of his study. He did publish recently, and the word is getting out:

The on-line journal tracks the number of times articles are accessed and posts this on the website. In the first month, the article was accessed over nine thousand times and reached the second position among the 100 articles published since the journal began in July, 2002. As of Nov. 23, the article is approaching 10,000 accessions and has been the topic of email and listserv conversations throughout the health and safety and environmental networks.

OK, enough. Now you go read it.

Oh, and for those of you who are wondering where the title -- The Pump Handle -- comes from:

The story of the pump handle is familiar to any first-semester public health student: During the London cholera epidemic of 1854, John Snow examined maps of cholera cases and traced the disease to water from a local pump. At the time, the prevailing theory held that cholera spread through the air, rather than water, so Snow faced criticism from others in the science community – not to mention resistance from the water companies. He finally convinced community leaders to remove the pump’s handle to prevent further exposure.

More than a century later, thousands of people still die from cholera each year, and providing clean drinking water to the world’s entire population is a far-off goal. The Pump Handle symbolizes both a public health victory and the challenges facing the public health and environmental fields today.

But Snow's action is significant in another way in today's world. Although he was one of the first to actually use epidemiology to successfully fight a public health hazard, the actual cause of Cholera wasn't discovered for another thirty years.

Think about that in today's context, where despite overwhelming epidemiological evidence that working around a chemical or a work process may cause occupational disease (think popcorn lung or ergonomics), industry fights any regulatory action until every single question is answered about the precise mechanism in which the chemical or work process causes the illness. Looking at disease patterns, it's clear that diacetyl destroys workers' lungs and that repetitive lifting causes back injuries. Do we know that exact physical mechanism in which these occur? No. Is there still uncertainty? Yes. Do we need to wait until we've figured it all out before acting to protect workers? According to corporate America, yes, even if it takes decades and more dead and disabled workers. According to good public health practice, no. Chemicals shouldn't have the same rights as people -- to be considered innocent until proven guilty -- by the illness and death of workers. Think about the Broad St. pump handle when confronted with their arguments.

But I digress. Go read the Pump Handle. Bookmark it. Tell them Jordan sent you.

Your Job Or Your Life: Popcorn Lung Comes To Wisconsin

This is sickening.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinal has a two part series about how the "popcorn lung" tragedy has hit the state of Wisconsin, "'Killer Butter' Puts Illinois Worker's Life in Precarious State," and "Struggling for air: Flavoring chemical tied to severe lung disease remains unregulated".

The articles tell stories all too familiar to Confined Space readers where we've been writing about popcorn lung for years: how diacetyl, the fake butter flavoring chemical literally destroys the lungs of food workers exposed even for a relatively short time, how despite overwhelming evidence of the chemical's danger, as well as sick and dying workers, OSHA refuses to even contemplate regulatory action, how a group of unions and a group of scientists have petitioned OSHA to issue an emergency standard to protect workers, how the EPA is studying whether or not consumers are exposed (but hasn't released the results), how juries have awarded and companies have settled for more than $100 million in lawsuits filed nationwide by workers injured by diacetyl, and how the FDA considers the deadly substance "safe," based on industry data.

But with all we now know about the dangers of this deadly chemical, this is the most sickening thing I've read in those years. "Stuggling for Air" starts off with the story of this man:

A lean and fit 35-year-old Milwaukee man had been working at a local flavoring plant for just six months when he collapsed while playing basketball with his buddies.

He felt like he was hyperventilating. He couldn't figure it out. He always played basketball.

Then he noticed his sweat: It was bright orange.

Around the same time in 2004, he began to cough and wheeze and noticed a regular shortness of breath.

When he told his employer that he thought his symptoms might be linked to his 12-hour days bagging the powders that make some cheeses orange and give popcorn and other foods their butter flavor, his boss told him that there wasn't anything he could do about it.

Today - 2 1/2 years later - the man, who didn't want his name or his company's name published for fear he would be fired, has grocery bags full of prescription medications and a garbage bag packed with documents detailing his many doctor visits and dealings with his employer.

"I would give back every dime I ever made . . . to get my lungs back," he said.

But the end of the story is even more tragic:

As much as he hates to do it, the man who collapsed while playing basketball will report to work until he can figure out another way to support himself and his three children, he said.

He will continue pouring, mixing and bagging flavors that, when ventilated through a fan in the roof, turn the snow outside the plant yellow and orange in the winter, he said.

With no bachelor's degree and little professional experience, he fears he won't be able to match the roughly $18 an hour he earns at the flavor plant. Plus, he said he needs the medical benefits now more than ever.

"There are a lot of reasons I can't just walk away from this job," he said.

So what kind of a country is this that even knowing that exposure to a chemical can cause death, will allow people to continue working with it. And what kind of a country is this where a sick man seems to have no choice but to continue being exposed to a chemical he knows is killing him?

Meanwhile, "'Killer Butter' Puts Illinois Worker's Life in Precarious State," follows the story of Gerardo Solis, who worked for Chicago-area flavor companies in 19 years. Solis had first thought diacetyl, the chemical used for butter flavoring, only damaged his eyes. It was only last July that he learned that it was also destroying his lungs and would probably soon kill him:

The 41-year-old father of three was diagnosed with bronchiolitis obliterans, a severe and sometimes fatal disease that has destroyed 76% of his lung capacity. A bad cold or any minor respiratory infection could kill him.

Solis drops his chin and slowly shakes his head when he considers that it could have been prevented.

If somebody would have told him years ago when he first started coughing that the chemicals he worked with were to blame, he said, he would have found a new job.

Instead, doctors diagnosed him with asthma in 1990, three years after he started his job at a flavor factory. By 1999, pulmonary tests showed his lungs were functioning at 34% capacity, but still no diagnosis. In 2004, an industry-paid doctor came to the factory to test the workers and found Solis to be quite sick. Again, nobody suggested diacetyl might be at the root of his illness.

"I'm thinking more and more that it's criminal what they did," Solis said of the companies not finding or admitting the link.

And the problem threatens to get worse:

Scientists and public health experts say an occupational epidemic in the food-processing industry could be on the horizon.

"We're very concerned that the cases that we know about are just the tip of the iceberg," said David Weissman, director of respiratory disease studies with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, a scientific and research arm within the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

***

"This is just an example of the regulatory system falling on its face," said David Michaels, professor of environmental and occupational health at George Washington University and director of the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy.

Flavoring industry workers in some other states, including California, have a state agency overseeing workplace safety and unions that advocate for them. In Wisconsin, the workers rely solely on OSHA and are not unionized.

We've written about how California is having problems tackling the issues. But Wisconsin and other states apparently aren't doing even that well:

"Wisconsin simply does not have a robust occupational disease surveillance system in place," said Henry Anderson, the state's chief medical officer for environmental and occupational health.

"Most physicians don't take a good occupational history. . . . They don't want to get involved in workers' comp. The next thing they know, someone is challenging their expertise."

Terry Graves, an allergist with the Milwaukee Allergy and Asthma Centers, said he questioned the Milwaukee man who collapsed on the basketball court extensively about his work in the plant.

Graves diagnosed him with occupational-related asthma and suggested that he stay away from work for roughly two months. Graves continued to see him roughly every two to four months and noticed that the man was getting progressively worse. His lung capacity declined from 84% to 68% in just one year.

But a possible link with bronchiolitis obliterans didn't arise. According to Graves' files, the man talked about another chemical and didn't mention diacetyl until February 2006, nearly a year after his first visit with Graves.

"I'm aware of bronchiolitis obliterans. . . . I hadn't really been entertaining that," Graves said. "Sounds like I should do some more looking."

Few doctors in the country have made that diagnosis for patients who work in the flavor industry, said Robert Harrison, president of the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. The disease is often overlooked, he said.

"Many of the bronchiolitis obliterans cases were initially diagnosed as chronic bronchitis . . . and asthma," he said. "It takes an alert doctor."

Sluggish federal requirements do nothing to spark interest in the disease, he said. It is not among the diseases the CDC requires states to track. There is no "case definition" to assure uniformity of disease recognition, and hospital discharge data and death certificates don't identify it.

"We've got to get the word out," Harrison said.

We've got to do more than that. Even when the word's out, we have people still being exposed to the stuff because they need a job. As usual, we need more than information. We need a government agency that will issue regulations that will eleminate hazardous exposures to this chemical, and if that's not possible, to ban the use of the chemical alltogether. Ask most people on the street and they'll probably tell you that we have agencies that will do that: OSHA, EPA and maybe even the FDA.

But they're wrong. These are Bush times. And people continue to have no choice to work in jobs that will kill them.

More popcorn lung stories here.

Preventing Public Health Disasters Caused By "Sequestered Science"

Asbestos, tobacco, lead, vinyl chloride, diacetyl, DBCP, Vioxx -- what do these and countless other substances have in common (aside from the fact that they're very bad for you)? They're all examples of what George Washington University Professor David Michaels calls "tragic examples of data sequestration contributing to public health disasters.”

Michaels, also the director of the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy (SKAPP), has compiled a report called Sequestered Science: The Consequences of Undisclosed Knowledge, the latest issue of the Duke University School of Law’s journal Law and Contemporary Problems. “Sequestered science, ” according to Michaels is scientific knowledge concealed from the public.

Most of the articles published in Sequestered Science were originally presented at the second Coronado Conference, which was organized by the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy (SKAPP) to explore the scientific and social consequences of failure to disclose scientific knowledge. Authors propose solutions to help balance the costs and benefits of such secrecy; these include altering courts’ settlement practices and treatment of confidentiality agreements, creating clinical trial registries, and adopting legislation modeled on the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to improve accountability in producing and submitting scientific data used in public health and environmental protection programs.

“The processes used to maintain secrecy are easily abused, and the institutional tools and imperatives that hide data are stronger than those that promote data sharing,” writes SKAPP Director David Michaels, PhD in the issue’s foreword.

Michaels proposes a “Sarbanes-Oxley for Science," modeled after the post-Enron law passed to ensure the accuracy of financial information. Similarly, Sarbanes Oxley for Science would ensure that scientific information provided to the public and regulatory agencies is accurate and complete, and provide whistleblower protections for scientists who reveal information improperly hidden from regulators.

Popcorn Lung Problem Continues To Grow

The Contra Costa Times has more on the growing "popcorn lung" disaster.

Federal health officials have launched a nationwide investigation of working conditions in flavoring factories after the discovery of a devastating lung disease among two former California workers and possibly three others in the Los Angeles area.

At the same time, a group of 21 California legislators and the nation's two largest food-industry labor unions are urging state job-safety regulators to issue an emergency order restricting workers' exposure to vapors from an artificial butter flavoring. The flavoring chemical, called diacetyl (di-As-itle), has been strongly linked to the disease, called bronchiolitis obliterans.

The two actions arise in response to recent news of the latest confirmed victim, a 44-year-old woman in the Los Angeles area, and growing concerns about the safety of America's 3,700 other workers on the flavoring production lines.

While the number of confirmed cases to date is small, federal and state health investigators said they have only just begun to collaborate and look beyond the three Southern California flavoring plants where the known and suspect victims worked.

"A concerted effort is really being made across many agencies to address this problem and really find out what is needed to protect these workers," said Barbara Materna, California's chief of occupational health.

More Popcorn Lung stories here.

FDA to Popcorn Eaters: Nothing To Worry About From Lung Destroying Chemical. Really.

I've written a number of times about the artificial butter flavoring chemical diacetyl and how it destroys workers' lungs. Last month several unions petitioned the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for a standard to protect workers. Baltimore Sun journalist Andrew Schneider, who has been following the issue closely, reported on more than a dozen cases of lung disease across the country last April.

Since then, health officials in Ohio have identified more than 20 former workers at a Cincinnati flavoring manufacturer who have the disease, and physicians elsewhere have diagnosed more than a dozen other cases.

Given the havoc that diacetyl wreaks on the lungs of workers, one might reasonably wonder whether or not the chemical may also damage consumers' lungs when they microwave popcorn or heat up other foods containing additives. Schneider explains in an article earlier this week how diacetyl's possible effect on consumers has fallen through the regulatory cracks.

"The problem with a chemical like diacetyl is that the route of exposure - inhalation - does not fit easily the jurisdiction of any of these agencies," said David Vladeck, a Georgetown University law professor who spent 30 years at Public Citizen handling litigation on food and drug issues.

The problem is that OSHA only regulates exposure to workers (or at least it did before the current administration). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is conducting a study of how much of the chemicals consumers may be exposed to, but the results are currently out for industry review and apparently won't have any information about the health effects of that exposure.

In any case, it's questionable whether EPA has the authority to regulate diacetyl, as it's a food additive, which comes under the authority of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA currently classifies diacetyl as "generally recognized as safe" as long as you're just eating it, based on studies that were done in the late 1950s and early 1980s. The FDA did not look into whether their were adverse health effects from inhaling diacetyl while the food's cooking. And apparently the agency has no intention of looking any further at the issue.

In fact, the FDA seems to be using the traditional corporate-approved scientific method called "just making stuff up"

Michael Cheeseman, associate director of the FDA's Office of Food Additive Safety, said diacetyl occurs naturally in butter. And while the agency has not tested what kinds of vapors are released when products containing diacetyl are used in cooking, he said home cooks are not "being exposed to anything that they would not be exposed to if the food were prepared with real butter."

OK, so they haven't tested it or anything, but that doesn't stop them from assuming it's perfectly natural and therefore OK.

In other words, first kill the cows.

Of course, there are scientists out there who think the FDA is full of crap.

"How does he know that the diacetyl from cows is identical to diacetyl brewed in chemical vats?" asked Dr. David Egilman, a specialist in occupational medicine who was an expert witness for many of the injured popcorn workers in their lawsuits against flavoring companies.

Dr. David Michaels, director of the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy at George Washington University's School of Public Health, called the FDA's conclusions "absurd."

"There is no evidence that breathing diacetyl vapors is safe and plenty of evidence that it is deadly," he said.

I always liked stove-top popcorn better anyway.

Unions Petition Cal/OSHA For Popcorn Lung Standard

The United Food and Commercial Workers union and the California State Labor Federation have petitioned Cal/OSHA for an emergency temporary standard to protect workers against the damaging lung disease caused by diacetyl, a deadly chemical used in flavorings.T

he UFCW and the California Labor Federation are petitioning the Standards Board to require employers to control airborne exposure to diacetyl and ensure that all employees who are exposed to a certain airborne level of the chemical are provided with air purifying respirators. The safety of these workers would be additionally monitored through medical surveillance and regular consultations.

The petition also demands that Cal/OSHA immediately issue a bulletin to all employers and employees potentially exposed to diacetyl outlining the dangers of the chemical. Cal/OSHA is being asked to conduct inspections and begin rule-making proceedings to establish a permanent standard that will put an end to this tragic epidemic and protect workers from exposure to all flavorings.

There are 16 to 20 plants producing flavorings in the state of California, according to CalOSHA.

Last month, the UFCW and the Teamsters petitioned federal OSHA for a standard. The AFL-CIO followed up with a letter of support to OSHA, stating that "clearly, in the absence of a standard and proper control measures, workers exposed to the flavoring diacetyl face a grave danger."

California, and 20 other states that have federally approved OSHA "state plans," are authorized to issue their own health and safety standards, as long as they are "at least as effective" as federal OSHA standards. They can also go beyond federal standards. California, for example, is the only state to have an ergonomics and a heat standard -- although they're both relatively weak.

More here.
More on popcorn lung here.

Congresspersons Call on OSHA To Protect Workers From Popcorn Lung

Politicians are now getting on board labor's call for OSHA to protect workers from popcorn workers lung.

Three members of Congress -- George Miller (D-CA), Major Ownes (D-NY) and Hilda Solis (D-CA) called on Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao today to issue an Emergency Temporary Standard to protect workers from the chemicals cause "popcorn workers lung." Two labor unions and a group of scientists petitioned OSHA last week for an emergency standard to protect workers from the chemical that is destroying their lungs.

The letter to Secretary Chao stated that

It is imperative that you take immediate steps to protect U.S. workers from bronchiolitis obliterans, a progressive and often fatal lung disease caused by occupational exposure to diacetyl, a synthetic form of butter flavoring, by issuing an Emergency Temporary Standard in accordance with section 655 (c) of the OSH Act.

***

Immediate action is essential to prevent new outbreaks of bronchiolitis obliterans and safeguard workers in a wide range of plants that manufacture or use synthetic butter flavoring. They include businesses that use synthetic diacetyl to manufacture butter flavoring as well as those that use the manufactured flavoring in consumer products, including microwave popcorn, baked goods, candy, frozen foods and other products.

The representatives urged the Bush administration to take swift action before more workers fall ill and die.

"This is a frightening disease that has sickened or killed workers from coast to coast," said Miller, the senior Democrat on the House Education and the Workforce Committee. "Under the Bush administration, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has knowingly refused to use its authority to crack down on this problem in food manufacturing plants all over the country. For the sake of these workers, it is time for that history of neglect to be reversed, and fast."

"OSHA's refusal to regulate diacetyl is costing some workers their lungs and their lives. Secretary Chao must intervene at once to stop these preventable deaths," said Owens, the senior Democrat on the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.

"OSHA's failure to regulate the flavorings industry has caused workers in my district and around the nation to develop a debilitating lung disease. It is long overdue for Secretary Chao to fulfill her legal and moral responsibility to protect these workers from this terrible, but preventable illness, by taking emergency steps to regulate diacetyl," said Solis. "I urge swift action to protect the health of workers across this country."

Popcorn Lung: The Tragedy Continues

Although the public tragedy of "popcorn workers lung" began in a popcorn factory in Missouri, the problem is nationwide:

Hacking and gasping, Irma Ortiz could cart her groceries only so far before she'd catch other shoppers glaring at her.

Mortified, she'd abandon her cart on the spot and bolt for the door.

Frank Herrera could gun his dirt bike only so far before choking on the rush of air. Go. Stop. Go. Stop. Exasperated, he gave up riding.

Ortiz, 44, and Herrera, 34, are odd candidates for lung transplants, being nonsmokers and having considerable youth on their side.

How they lost 70 to 80 percent of their breathing capacity is no less astonishing. They acquired the same rare, lung-ravaging disease from breathing the same chemicals on the same type of job.

The two weren't working in a chemical or pesticide plant. Nor in a weapons plant. They didn't metal-plate, fumigate, degrease, demolish, smelt or weld.

They made, of all things, artificial food flavorings.

Last week two labor unions -- the United Food and Commercial Workers and the Teamsters -- along with 41 occupational health scientists, petitioned the Occupational Safety and Health Administration for a standard to protect the thousands of American workers who may be exposed to diacetyl, the deadly butter-flavoring chemical that is destrying workers' lungs.

Ortiz and Herrera were two of the affected workers that Sacramento Bee writer Chris Bowman encountered in their investigation of the problem. Several of the factories that the Bee writers visited looked relatively clean adn safe.

Yet the stories of Ortiz and Herrera provide fresh and powerful evidence that some of the estimated 3,700 flavoring production workers nationwide continue to be exposed to highly toxic fumes.

Their experience also exposes serious disconnects in job safety surveillance and enforcement that allow workers with little or no knowledge of the potential dangers to slip through the safety net and lose most of their capacity to breathe, according to interviews with several health experts and regulators and a review of Cal-OSHA inspection records on flavoring plants in Southern California.

Few of the flavoring workers are unionized. Many of the estimated hundreds in California are immigrants like Ortiz and Herrera, and primarily speak Spanish.

The two worked 60 miles apart in Southern California, which hosts most of the flavoring factories on the West Coast -- Herrera at Mission Flavors & Fragrances Inc. in Orange County, and Ortiz at Carmi Flavor and Fragrance Co. near Los Angeles.

"They never said nothing to us about the chemicals there, the kinds of dangers or give us a warning like, you know, 'This is bad for you guys, protect yourselves better,' " Ortiz said of her former employer. "They never say nothing to us like that."

In order to get a handle on the problem, CalOSHA has entered into a controversial arrangement with the flavorings industry:

Industry doctors in California began looking for that evidence a year ago by screening workers. Companies later struck a deal with Cal-OSHA to continue evaluating employees and to conduct their own safety inspections -- in exchange for avoiding visits from agency enforcers and possible citations. The catch was, the companies would then have to share the results with regulators, who would follow up on-site to make sure that the plants were safe.

Some public health experts question whether regulators should be satisfied with information that comes secondhand from an industry with a financial stake in the outcome.

"It's terrific that industry wants to play a role in solving the problem, but it's the responsibility of regulators to ensure that employers provide a safe workplace," said David Michaels, who has studied the Midwestern popcorn workers disease as a public health professor at George Washington University.

An industry-paid doctor, Michaels said, no matter how professional, has an inherent conflict of interest that could taint the process.

"It's not a question of how honest you are, or how good you are," Michaels said. "It's that the financial relationship clouds your judgment. And Cal-OSHA is not there to watch the data being collected."

And some companies have a rather suspicious history:

Mission Flavors provided Herrera with a breathing mask that filtered out chemical vapors, but, apparently, with no instruction, according to Cal-OSHA records of its 1,050-hour investigation of the company.

"He thought it inhibited his breathing toward the end of his employment, and thought it was safer not to wear it," an inspector noted after interviewing Herrera.

Mission Flavors also failed to tell authorities about Herrera, who left on medical disability and was hospitalized "due to his illness from diacetyl," Cal-OSHA records show. The agency instead found out through Harber.

Cal-OSHA fined Mission Flavors $45,575 in January 2005 for several violations, including "failure to report illness." Moreover, it found that Herrera "became ill because employer failed to implement proper controls and respiratory equipment."

The company is appealing the enforcement action. Its president, Patrick Imburgia, could not be reached for comment.

Herrera, meanwhile, is suing diacetyl manufacturers. He has lost 70 percent of his breathing capacity, Harber said.

And, of course there's the same old story of why we need regulations -- and strong enforcement -- instead of just trusting industry to "do the right thing:

Diacetyl's potent punch was no secret to its manufacturers.

At least one of them, the German giant BASF, had performed experiments in the 1970s showing diacetyl fumes to be extraordinarily effective at killing lab rats.

"That was a big surprise to everybody," said the flavor industry's Hallagan. His trade group did not learn of the internal study until October 2001.

But the flavoring group apparently did know as early as 1985 that breathing high concentrations of diacetyl posed a breathing hazard -- to humans -- according to the association's "ingredient data sheet" on the chemical.

"Harmful. Sore throat, coughing; may be absorbed," the report states under the heading, "Human Health Effects Data, Known Effects of Acute Exposure" for inhalation. "High concentrations may cause irritation of respiratory tract; capable of producing systemic toxicity."

The diacetyl "ingredient data sheet" had taken on a different look by 2001, the year the industry first learned of the cluster of popcorn worker cases in the Midwest. Under the same heading, the new report states, "Not Found" for both ingestion and inhalation.

Hallagan said the industry had not yet gotten around to updating the data sheet, using a "place-keeper" to fill in the blanks.

And the "place-keeper" went by the term "Not Found."

To this day, the manufacturers' Material Safety Data Sheet on diacetyl does not mention bronchiolitis obliterans among the potential hazards.

The result:

Ortiz worked with four or five others in a room the size of a two-car garage -- with no ventilation system, no vapor-tight goggles and -- for years -- no vapor mask.

As a mixer, Ortiz got the brunt of the fumes. She routinely poured the pungent chemical solutions by hand into a giant electric blender.

"When I pour the liquids into the funnel, you can smell the fumes," Ortiz said. "They were always there. There is no way to take the fumes out, because we only have one door … that's it."

Less than a month into her job, Ortiz began to complain about constant irritation in her eyes. A company doctor said she had developed photophobia -- an usually strong sensitivity to light. Ortiz noticed that her co-workers in the mixing room also had red eyes.

By the time Ortiz was diagnosed with Bronchiolitis obliterans, she has lost 80% of her breathing capacity and needed a double-lung transplant.

More Popcorn Workers Lung stories here.

Popcorn Workers Lung: OSHA's Strange Definition of "Emergency"

I wrote yesterday about the labor union petition to OSHA to issue and emergency temporary standard that would significantly reduce workers' exposure to diacetyl, an ingredient in butter flavoring that is causing "popcorn workers lung," or bronchiolitis obliterans, a serious and often fatal lung disorder that requires many affected workers to get lung transplants.

The unions -- the United Food and Commercial Workers and the Teamsters, along with a representative of the 42 scientists that signed a supporting letter held a press conference yesterday to officially announce the petition

"There is compelling scientific evidence that diacetyl causes terrible lung disease," said David Michaels of George Washington University's School of Public Health, who joined union officials on a conference call with reporters.

"OSHA has ignored the evidence and has done nothing," said Michaels, one of 42 scientists to urge Labor Secretary Elaine Chao in a letter to limit workers' exposure to diacetyl.

Because of the serious nature of popcorn lung and the fact that workers are still being exposed, the unions petitioned for an emergency standard, which is authorized under the OSHA Act if "employees are exposed to grave danger from toxic substances or new hazards," and if and emergency standard is "necessary to protect employees from such danger." Given that your average OSHA standard takes at least ten years from start to finish, and emergency standard seems appropriate.

OSHA, however, seems to have a rather different conception of the word "emergency."

Ruth McCully, who heads OSHA's Directorate for Science, Technology and Medicine, said the agency has yet to evaluate the unions' request for an "emergency temporary standard." She said evaluations of such requests can take up to two years.

So in a potential emergency situation (which generally means you have to act fast), it takes two years to determine if there's really grounds for an emergency? I'm glad she's not running my local ambulance service.

Meanwhile,

The Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association, an industry group, issued a statement saying it would support "any appropriate action that is based on sound science, including the establishment of a (permissible exposure limit) that will protect workers."

Now that might sound reassuring, until you note the use of the words "sound science." "Sound science" is code used by industry to pro-science clothing on policies that actually ignore, change, or selectively use science to fit industry’s political objective, generally to defeat or reverse environmental and public health and safety rules and protections. It has been used to fight federal action against smoking, ergonomics, global warming, oil and gas drilling in Alaska, stem cell research, missile defense and other issues (More on "sound science here, here and here.)

Michaels made the point at yesterday's press conference that although OSHA and the industry argue that more study is needed before regulating, the fact is that we know workers are gettign sick and dying and we how to protect them. More study is always welcome, but it's no excuse not to take immediate action to prevent harmful exposures now.

Meanwhile, Michaels also discussed a letter the group sent to EPA administrator Stephen Johnson to request the release of a study that EPA has conducted on diacetyl’s effects on consumers who may be exposed to the chemical when opening bags of popcorn. Michaels said that the EPA was holding the study pending internal and industry review. "Industry doesn't have the right to see the results of this study before consumers," Michaels said.

An EPA spokesperson said that the study wasn't going to tell us anything anyway.

Suzanne Ackerman, spokeswoman for the EPA, said her agency’s popcorn study is going through internal review and will be submitted for publication as soon as this fall.

But when it is released, it won’t say anything about exposure to consumers and what, if any, harm it causes, she said. The study is looking only at how much of the chemical is released when someone pops a bag.

"This isn’t a health effects study. It isn’t going to tell you anything," Ackerman said.

Well, that's reassuring.

Also participating in the press conference was a worker from the Jasper, Missouri popcorn plant where some of the first cases of popcorn workers lung were diagnosed:

Ed Pennell, one of the Jasper popcorn workers who filed suit and has since settled out of court for an undisclosed amount, said he and his fellow workers have been waiting for years for regulators to take action.

"We figured that as a result of the suit, something would be done about it, the government would take some action. But none of that has come about yet," Pennell told reporters on the conference call.

"Basically my lungs are shot," said Pennell, adding he is on a waiting list for a lung transplant.

Nope, no emergency here. Check back with us in a couple of years.

Unions Petition OSHA To Deal With Slow-Motion Chemical Disaster

We've become accustomed in this country to framing disasters as single events involving the deaths of numerous workers such as Sago or the BP Texas City explosion. But the deadly damage caused to the lungs of hundreds of workers in this country by a butter-flavoring chemical can only be called a slow-motion disaster. And while OSHA fiddles, the damage to workers' lungs continues.

Two labor unions, the United Food and Commercial Workers and the Teamsters, along with forty of the nation's leading experts in environmental and occupational health, are petitioning the Occupational Safety and Health Administration today for an Emergency Temporary Standard to prevent workers from being exposed to diacetyl, a butter flavoring chemical that has caused a deadly lung disease known as "popcorn lung" among workers in microwave popcorn facilities and other factories where flavorings are used.

According to the UFCW press release

"Three workers have died and hundreds of others have been seriously injured. We will not let food processing workers continue to be the canaries in the coal mine while waiting for the industry to regulate itself," said Jackie Nowell, UFCW Safety & Health Director.

"The science is clear. Now it is time for the Department of Labor to employ their regulatory mandate and protect the public," said Lamont Byrd, Teamster Safety & Health Director

According to the unions, about seventy U.S. companies are involved in the making and marketing of flavorings.

More than 8,000 workers are employed in the flavorings production industry and may be exposed to the dangers of diacetyl and other similar chemicals, and tens of thousands of food processing workers are involved in the production of popcorn, pastries, frozen foods, and candies which uses these chemicals. Even dog food contains this harmful chemical. It is not clear whether consumers are at risk from exposure to diacetyl but certainly the workers who deal with high concentrations of the flavoring chemical are at risk of developing serious and irreversible lung damage.

The petition calls for an airborne exposure limit, respirators for workers exposed above the limit, medical surveillance and airborne monitoring. The petition also calls for OSHA to issue an educational bulletin to all employers and employees, conduct inspections where workers are exposed, and to begin work on a permanent standard covering all food flavorings.

In a Confined Space post about the ravages caused by diacetyl, I asked more than two years ago why OSHA hadn't considered an emergency temporary standard (ETS). OSHA has the ability to issue an ETS if the Assistant Secretary determines that "employees are exposed to grave danger from exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful or from new hazards." An ETS also serves as a proposed standard until the final standard is issued which must be done within six months. OSHA has rarely used this provision of the act, even in the rare case that the agency has issued an ETS, the courts have often overturned it. No successful ETS has been issued in over 25 years.

The hazards of diacetyl first came to public attention in a 2002 USA Today article. In 2004, thirty workers at a Jasper Missouri popcorn processing plant who had suffered severe lung damage sued the maker of the chemical flavoring, International Flavors & Fragrances, because the Material Safety Data Sheet for the butter flavoring said "Respiratory protection: none generally required" and that respirators were not normally required unless vapor concentrations were "high."

The workers were suffering from what has become known as "popcorn workers lung," or bronchiolitis obliterans—a severe, disabling, and often fatal lung disease experienced by factory workers who produce or handle diacetyl. Many of these workers were so sick that they were awaiting lung transplants. Three workers have died. The tragedy was that the chemical company BASF had known since 1993 that the chemcal caused severe lung damage in rats. After several workers won multimillion dollar lawsuits, the company settled with the rest of the workers.


"Astonishingly Grotesque" Health Effects

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) studied the chemical after the workers's health effects became known, finding that the buttery popcorn flavoring eats away at the coating of the lung's airways and is one of the worst lung toxins they had ever seen:

One scientist, research physiologist Jeffrey Fedan, used the words "astonishingly grotesque" to describe the toxic effect of diacetyl, a key ingredient in the flavoring.

Vincent Castranova, chief of NIOSH's pathology and physiology research branch, said that the effect of breathing butter flavoring vapors could be likened to inhaling acid.

"The airway response is the worst we've ever seen," Castranova said. And that's comparing it to a catalogue of notorious respiratory toxins such as asbestos and coal dust.

Then last April, journalist Andrew Schneider described in the Baltimore Sun how workers are still getting sick and dying, while federal and state agencies whose job it is to address these hazards are falling down on the job. Schneider examined the failure of OSHA and California's CalOSHA to address the problem, despite that fact that aggressively tackling chemical hazards that kill workers is exactly what these agencies were created to do. OSHA refused to consider a new regulation that would protect workers from exposure to diacetyl, despite urging by OSHA scientists in 2002 and 2003 to take further action. George Washington University Professor David Michaels called "criminal."

Even the doctor who first diagnosed "popcornworker's lung" is disgusted, according to the Baltimore Sun:

In 2000, Dr. Allen Parmet, an occupational medicine specialist, diagnosed bronchiolitis obiterans in workers in Missouri, the first time that the disease had been found in a popcorn plant.

"We identified the hazard from diacetyl six years ago. We knew how to stop it four years ago, yet no action has been taken by OSHA," said Parmet, who has diagnosed the disease in more than 100 workers, including several who did not work in popcorn plants.

And, as the Sacramento Bee reports,

Relatively few of these food-processing and flavoring workers are unionized. Many of the estimated hundreds in California flavoring plants are immigrants and speak primarily Spanish.

"Who is looking out for them?" Nowell said.

In California, Cal/OSHA officials announced that they are now considering the unions' request, according to the Bee:

California job safety regulators said the link between the butter-flavoring chemical and workers' lung damage is strong enough to warrant regulation.

"It's certainly a discussion that needs to happen," said Len Welsh, acting director of the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Welsh said Tuesday he will propose a regulation similar to the unions' proposed "permissible exposure limit" for the butter-mimicking chemical, called diacetyl.

Meanwhile, the majority of the estimated 25 flavoring companies operating in California are "voluntarily" examining workers' health and inspecting their plants in exchange for avoiding Cal-OSHA inspections and possible citations, Welsh said.

Under the arrangement formalized in May, the companies must share the results with regulators and allow enforcers to visit their operations to ensure protections are in place.

"We're not leaving it to industry to police itself," Welsh said.

"We're going to be getting into every one of those plants ourselves."

The first California victim, reported in 2004, is a young father of two who worked as a mixer at Mission Flavors & Fragrances near Mission Viejo in Orange County.

Cal-OSHA fined Mission Flavors $45,575 in January 2005 for several violations, including "failure to report illness," and found that the worker "became ill because employer failed to implement proper controls and respiratory equipment," agency records show.

The company is appealing the enforcement action.

The other California victim is a mother of three in her early 40s who mixed flavoring components at Carmi Flavor & Fragrance near Los Angeles.

Among the occupational safety and health experts who signed a supporting letter are former Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA, Eula Bingham; former OSHA official (and whistle-blower) Adam Finkel, former EPA Assistant Administrator Lynn Goldman, George Washington University Professor (and former Department of Energy Assistant Secretary) David Michaels, former NIOSH director Anthony Robbins, and University of Washington Professor (and former OSHA policy director) Michael Silverstein.

Even the industry seems more favorable toward a standard, according to the Bee:

A flavoring trade group spokesman said his member companies support an OSHA limit for diacetyl, a naturally occurring chemical in butter and other foods that is synthesized and highly concentrated for economy.

The industry had viewed the diacetyl-lung disease link as an open question until the second California victim surfaced in May, said John Hallagan, an attorney for the 120-member Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association.

But, now, Hallagan said, "this issue needs to be reviewed again, and that's what we plan to do."

Lesson Not Yet Learned

The entire "popcorn lung" disaster shows that workers in this country are still the proverbial canaries in the coal mine. The health effects of chemicals aren't adequately studied, and when they are, the results are hidden -- until someone notices that workers are starting to get sick and die. These workers were "lucky" in a way because diaceyl left its "fingerprint" on his lungs in a relatively short period of time. Had the damage caused by the chemical masked itself as some more common "lifestyle" disease, it may never have been linked back to their working conditions.

Finally, the policy and practice of considering chemicals to be innocent until proven guilty - by the lungs and bodies of workers -- must end. I have written often about REACH, the European Union's proposal to gather and report the quantity, uses and potential health effects of approximately 30,000 chemicals, and about the defects of the U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act. We must call on the U.S. Government to not only stop lobbying against the European proposal, but to advocate for a similar law here.

Related Articles About Popcorn Lung

• Lungs of the Living Dead, March 1, 2004
• Popcorn Workers Lung Trial Begins
• Popcorn Lung Trial Update 3
• Popcorn Lung Trial Update 4
• Jury Awards Popcorn Lung Victim $20 million: What Have We Learned? March 15, 2004
• Let No Rat Die In Vain, March 16, 2004
• Interview With Eric Peoples, March 17, 2004
• "Astonishingly Grotesque" Popcorn Lung Shows Failure of Regulatory System, April 4. 2004
• Popcorn Lung on NPR, April 20, 2004
• Second Popcorn Lung Trial Ends, May 2, 2004
• Second Popcorn Lung Suit Settled
• Third Popcorn Lung Trial Ends In Victory For Worker
• Manufactured Uncertainty Kills Workers and US Regulatory System, April 17, 2005
• Take four bulldozers and put them on your chest. Then put an elephant on top of those bulldozers. November 25, 2005
• Can We Still Trust Popcorn? Maybe Not If These Guys Say It's OK, April 27, 2006
• Government To Workers: Cough Your Lungs Out And Drop Dead, April 24, 2006
• Popcorn Lung Victim Dies: "Knowing That It Could Have been Avoided", May 3, 2006
• NIOSH, Congress Investigate Popcorn Lung, June 6, 2006
  

Also more information on Diacetyl at DefendingScience.org

Industry Pushes Chemical Gag Rule To Keep Information From Workers and the Public

Our "friend" in the House of Representatives, Charlie Norwood (R-GA), is proposing legislation that would ensure that chemical producers and users "can continue to expose workers and the public to deadly hazards, and do so without interference by public health authorities and without the threat of legal action by those injured by their negligence," according to testimony by George Washington University professor David Michaels.

What's going on?

The story can get a bit complicated, so hang in there. Let me take you back to the early 1970's when OSHA was created. Because the agency couldn't create from scratch the large number of health and safety standards that were needed to protect American workers, they simply adopted existing industry consensus standards. Among these were about 600 chemical standards that had been developed by an organization called the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), which issues Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) for chemical substances. OSHA adopted these standards as enforceable "Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs).

OSHA's PELs were OK for their day, but they were based on the science of the 1940's and 1950's before many of the long-term and cancer-causing effects of many chemical were known. Unfortunately, most of these outdated PELs are still on the books. Over the past 35 years, OSHA has issued only about 30 new chemical standards, leaving workers effectively without the protection of the latest scientific information on these chemicals, as well as the thousands of new chemicals introduced into the workplace since then.

The one bright spot in this travesty is OSHA's Hazard Communication (a.k.a. Right to Know) Standard, issued during the Reagan administration, which requires chemical manufacturers to develop Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) that must list OSHA's "Permissible Exposure Limits," in addition to any recommended exposure limits to the product from certain professional organizations which have expertise in occupational safety and health. These organizations include ACGIH, as well as the highly respected National Toxicology Program (NTP) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). he employer is not legally required to comply with these recommended standards, but OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard requires workers to be trained on the information on the MSDS, including the recommended standards.

Companies that produce and use chemicals are not happy with this arrangement. Having successfully bottled up OSHA's standardmaking process through endless analytical requirements and political obstructions, they see the these recommended standards as a threat. Although employers don't have comply with the standards on the MSDS (aside from OSHA's few antiquated PELs), they fear that if workers learn the latest health information about the chemical they are being exposed to, they may demand that something be done about their exposures. Or employees who are damaged by the chemicals may sue the manufacturers. And we can't have that!

The law firm Patton Boggs, which represents of number of the companies that would like to continue to poison workers unimpeded, came up with a brilliant idea: declare war on ACGIH through lawsuits designed to destroy the organization, and then to propose legislation that would prohibit OSHA from requiring the inclusion of ACGIH, IARC or NTP chemical standard in MSDSs. And Congressman Norwood was only happy enough to sponsor the legislation -- the Workplace Safety and Health Transparency Act (H.R. 5554,) -- for his friends.

Under Norwood's bill, OSHA would not be able to

promulgate or incorporate by reference any finding, guideline, standard, limit, rule, or regulation based on a determination reached by any organization, unless the Secretary affirmatively finds that such determination has been adopted and promulgated by a nationally recognized standards-producing organization under procedures whereby it can be determined by the Secretary that persons interested and affected by the scope or provisions of the standard have reached substantial agreement on its adoption

Instead of using information and standards developed by organizations like ACGIH, NTP and IARC where a group of experts in the field study all available information and reach a determination, Norwood wants OSHA to depend only on organizations that develop standards "by consensus" where everyone -- including the impacted industries -- agrees. As Dr. Michaels correctly points out, "that simply is not going to happen."

Norwood argues that Congress has already defined "consensus organization" in the Occupational Safety and Health Act the same way he does, and that by using standards issued by non-consensus organizations in MSDSs and as input into developing standards, OSHA is breaking the law. The reality, however, is much different. In fact, the OSHAct does define "consensus organization" as Norwood says, but the main place in the act that consensus organizations are mentioned is when OSHA was given authority to adopt consensus standard immediately after the agency was created.

The Hazard Communication Standard, however, explicitly requires employers to use other sources of information, and that standard has been upheld by the courts. In other words, the accusations of Norwood and Chajet that OSHA is engaged in illegal acts is ludicrous.

But Henry Chajet at Patton Boggs isn't going to let something as trivial as facts get in the way of his rhetoric. The language Chajet uses to justify the legislation would be funny if his goal didn't mean illness and death for thousands of American workers. Chajet accuses OSHA, MSHA and DOE of "abrogating their duties through an insidious delegation of government authority that denies our fellow citizens the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the protection of the laws enacted by the Congress."

Norwood has even accused OSHA scientists of "moonlighting" for ACGIH -- unable to issue standards at OSHA, they go over to ACGIH to get them to issue a standard, which is then "adopted by reference" at OSHA. (Norwood mistakenly considers informing workers of other chemical standards on a Material Safety Data Sheet as "adopting the standard by reference.") The reality is that some scientists at OSHA and MSHA have contributed their unremibursed time on weekends or vacation time to go to TLV meetings -- not to make any money (as the word "moonlighting" implies) -- but because they have some skills and expertise that they want to contribute to make the world a little safer place for workers (a concept that Chajet and his ilk obviously have not understanding of).

Norwood manages to work himself into a frenzy about OSHA's alleged crimes:

"The ACGIH is going to stop writing the laws of this land, if it's the last thing I do on this earth. They'd better get ready because I'm going to come after them. You guys at the Labor Department that are letting this happen are next on that podium, under oath. We're going to find out why you are allowing this to happen, under oath .... It's against what Congress wants you to do .... We tried to fix this but the Labor Department stopped it, and now it's war!"

Hypocrisy Alert: The companies pushing Norwood's bill are praising ANSI's process which issues voluntary standards "according to strict procedures that are transparent, in open meetings, with a generous input and appeal process for all interested parties." But some of you may remember a previous effort by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to develop an voluntary consensus ergonomics standard. That consensus process took years of meetings, drafts that were commented on numerous times by a large committee of academics, industry and labor representatives. But as the final version was nearing completion in the Fall of 2003, the industry reps, unhappy with the result (even though it would have been significantly weaker than the recently killed OSHA Standard) threatened to sue the National Safety Council, which was sponsoring the process. The industry's threat worked. ANSI and the Safety Council caved in and the consensus ergonomics standard died. Moral of the story: These guys don't really care what the process is; only that the results allow them to go on doing whatever they want to do.

But I digress. Two hearings have been held on the bill. At the second hearing last week, Michaels attempted to enlighten Norwood on the origin of his bill:

The reality is that this legislation is part of a campaign, spearheaded by the well-paid lobbyists at the firm of Patton, Boggs, being waged on behalf of a small group of companies and trade associations. After losing in federal court, not once, but twice, these parties now seek special favors from Congress in the form of this anti-public health legislation.

***

Attorneys from Patton Boggs, for example, represent a group of mining companies who have fought for at least a decade for the right to expose underground miners to diesel particulate matter, a hazard that increases their risk of cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary disease and lung cancer. The EPA and this Congress have made important strides to limit the public's exposure to such dangerous particulates, but Patton Boggs continues to challenge the Department of Labor’s efforts to protect underground miners through sustained procedural attacks, and sadly, have succeeded in delaying the rule. The unceasing efforts of these lobbyists have genuine health consequences for exposed workers.

Norwood was so upset at the suggestion that he was doing the bidding of Patton Boggs and interested industries that he interrupted Michaels twice during his testimony, accusing him of attacking his honor, although Michaels had distributed a memo from the Brick Industry Association requesting money to fund Patton Boggs effort to attack ACGIH:

This effort is being led by Henry Chajet, an attorney at Patton-Boggs, who is soliciting interested companies and industries. Estimated costs for 2004 are $570,000. Several BIA member companies voiced interest in contributing to the effort. BIA is not in a position to make a financial contribution at this time.

And despite Norwood's fulminations, Michaels is right: there will be genuine health consequences for workers. Silica is a good example of the harm this legislation would do. It has been known for decades that silica dust, when inhaled, can cause a fatal lung disease called silicosis. But evidence has been building for years that silica also causes cancer. Ten years ago, IARC designated silica to be a carcinogen (a chemical that causes cancer) and ACGIH lowered its TLV. Since then, the evidence of silica's carcinogenicity has grown and OSHA -- which still enforces a hopelessly outdated 1966 standard, is currently working on a revision.

But this isn't good enough for the industry. Patton Boggs' Chajet testifying at the first hearing on April 27, complained that

The new [ACGIH] TLV limit for silica is ¼ the level deemed safe by valid OSHA and MSHA regulations and was created using secret authors with conflicts of interest and bias who ignored the scientific evidence that contradicts the TLV.

But as Dr. Michaels asks,

When an IARC expert panel concludes that a substance like silica, or beryllium, or hexavalent chromium are carcinogenic to humans, shouldn’t this information be provided to workers through a MSDS and the right-to-know protections afforded by the Hazard Communication standard?

In his testimony at Norwood's first hearing, UAW Health and Safety Director Frank Mirer argued that although ACGIH standards weren't as good as OSHA should be able to issue with months of hearings and expert input, they are much better than what's on the books now and given OSHA's inability to act, Congress should authorize a one-time adoption of ACGIH TLVs by OSHA. Mirer pointed out that the UAW had negotiated an agreement with the major automakers establishing the ACGIH TLVs as internal occupational exposure guidelines.

I'm not sure if OSHA's new director, Ed Foulke, was put under oath at last week's hearing as Norwood had promised, but to its credit OSHA is not supporting Norwood's bill, despite the Congressman's threats:

The bill ...could have the result of prohibiting OSHA from using many important sources of information—including standards, findings, reports, papers, treaties and recommendations, issued by industry, trade, or employee representative groups, and academic institutions--when drafting rules and issuing voluntary guidance documents.

Foulke also pointed out that the bill would prohibit OSHA from using the results of scientific studies to develop new OSHA standards

For example, suppose a study about a safety or health issue was conducted by a group of researchers at a university, such as the University of Georgia, and the results, which contained one or more scientific determinations, were published in a peer-reviewed journal. Even if the study’s determinations were submitted to OSHA as part of a formal notice-and-comment rulemaking process, this bill would likely prohibit OSHA from relying on that information in promulgating a standard.

I will end with one more example of the real consequences that this legislation could have for workers. Readers of Confined Space are familiar with the "popcorn lung" problems where workers have contracted a serious, fatal lung disease from exposure to diacetyl, a popcorn butter flavoring. Dozens of workers who are now facing lung transplants (one of whom has died) sued the manufacturer because the MSDS they were give did not include information that the chemical had been found through lab studies to cause severe lung damage, nor did it contain warnings to use appropriate respirators. The workers won most of the initial lawsuits, and the companies eventually settled with the rest.

If Norwood's bill were to pass, the criminal omission of the health information about diacetyl would be perfectly legal. And corporate America would rejoice.

NIOSH, Congress Investigate Popcorn Lung

Andrew Schneider in the Baltimore Sun has another interesting story about popcorn lung -- the deadly lung disease caused by exposure to a popcorn butter flavoring called diacetyl.

The The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), which has done extensive work on popcorn lung, is greatly expanding its investigation into the potential hazards of the chemical.

The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health has assigned additional teams of physicians, toxicologists and industrial hygienists to work with the industry and with state and local health departments that have identified workers who might have contracted the disease, bronchiolitis obliterans, which can destroy lungs.

Last week, more than 60 physicians, toxicologists and other medical specialists from a dozen states, Baltimore and NIOSH took part in a conference call to discuss ways they can track and assess the health of workers exposed to the flavoring chemicals.

The call, organized by the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists and the California health department, was initiated "because we fear that this disease will be found in workplaces across the country," said Dr. Robert Harrison, chief of California's division of occupational surveillance and president-elect of the national council.

Meanwhile, members of Congress are finally getting involved.

In Washington, investigators from the Democratic side of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce are collecting information on diacetyl, the flavoring industry and the way NIOSH and other agencies are handling worker illness.

"Workers are dying preventable deaths from these flavorings," said Rep. George Miller, a California Democrat and ranking member of the committee. "This is inexcusable, and it must stop."

In April, Schneider wrote an article revealing that Scientists at NIOSH and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration wanted to intensify investigations into illness caused by flavorings and issue federal regulations to protect workers. But top officials would rather let the flavoring industry's association -- The Food Extract Manufacturer's Association (FEMA) -- take care of the problem and police itself.

Earlier this week, Schneider reported that:

Interviews with California occupational medicine personnel and e-mail obtained from NIOSH under the Freedom of Information Act indicate that state officials told federal experts they were barred from the investigation because the flavoring industry trade association wanted it that way. The Flavor and Extract Manufacturing Association denied that.

FEMA claims that NIOSH declined to particpate due to lack of resources. NIOSH officials argue, however, that they said that due to resource issues, they would have to partner with CalOSHA. The California health department, meanwhile, says that the companies would not allow its investigators into the plants.

Meanwhile, Dr. David Egilman, a specialist in occupational and internal medicine at Brown University, who has testified in a number of trials resulting from lawsuits filed by workers aganist the flavoring companies has obtained a number of documents that NIOSHA would like to see, but with FEMA is refusing to release, claiming confidentiality.

"It would be unethical not to provide information to government agencies that they need to save lives," Egilman said. "There is too much secrecy shrouding the issue of who knew diacetyl was dangerous and when."

Egilman has campaigned aggressively against companies suppressing evidence that their product may harm workers and consumers in an effort to protect sales and shield themselves from liability suits.

Related Stories

• Popcorn Lung Victim Dies: "Knowing That It Could Have been Avoided", May 3, 2006
• Can We Still Trust Popcorn? Maybe Not If These Guys Say It's OK, April 27, 2006
• Government To Workers: Cough Your Lungs Out And Drop Dead, April 24, 2006
• Suppression Bias: Uncovering the Coverup of the Corporate Coverup, May 23, 2005

More Popcorn Lung stories here.

Popcorn Lung Victim Dies: "Knowing That It Could Have been Avoided"

Linda Redman, 57, died Sunday from died after a long lung illness caused by her exposure to the popcorn butter flavoring chemical diacetyl. Redman was among thirty employes at a Missouri popcorn plant who sued International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. and its subsidiary, Bush Boake Allen Inc. for failing to warn the workers at the plant where the chemical was used of its dangers, even though they had information that it caused deadly lung damage.

In other words, Redman was but the latest victim of this nation's failure to overcome the power of the chemical industry and protect workers from hazardous chemicals.

Studies had shown since the early 1990's that diacetyl could cause severe lung damage and that information was known to the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association. Yet the Material Safety Data Sheet that the International Flavors and Bush Boake Allen provided to Redman's employer stated that the chemical had "no known health hazards" and that respirators are "not normally required" for its butter flavoring, unless vapor concentrations were 'high.' "

I described her case over two years ago when the first lawsuits were filed:

Linda Redman started working as a packer at the Jasper popcorn plant in 1995, two years after the original study[that identified diacetyl's health effects]. Within two years, her breathing was so bad that she had to quit.

Redman used to work 12 hours a day and then come home to garden, cook dinner, and do her family's laundry. Now, she lives alone in Joplin, relying on home health nurses four days a week to help with basic chores around the house.

Redman, 55, doesn't have the stamina to change her bedsheets or cook herself dinner, unless it's something out of a can.

Only 15 percent of her lung capacity remains. Redman bides her time while waiting for a lung transplant by taking breathing treatments every four hours. She is constantly tethered to an oxygen tank, but she still gets exhausted walking from the bedroom to the couch.

Redman's sister, Donna Crampton, described the last year of her life:

"She said so many times she would give every penny of it for her health," Crampton said.

Redman worked at the plant for 18 months, starting in 1994 and leaving in 1996.

Crampton said Redman was in and out of the hospital "countless times" during the last year of her life, was bedridden for the last two months, and required round-the-clock nursing care for the last three weeks.

"The hardest thing of all to accept is knowing that it could have been avoided," Crampton said. "We're all pretty bitter."

Ken McClain, the attorney who represented the former and current popcorn workers, said Redman was one of the clients who had the most severe health problems at the time of her trial.

"We knew she would need a double lung transplant, but she continued to decline and was never healthy enough to go through the procedure," he said.

There are no government regulations to prevent exposure to diacetyl and Baltimore Sun journalist Andrew Schneider revealed a couple of weeks ago that OSHA has refused to consider regulating exposure to the chemical despite recommendations by the agency's scientists.

More popcorn lung articles here.

Can We Still Trust Popcorn? Maybe Not If These Guys Say It's OK

You know, despite all the news about the illnesses and deaths of popcorn workers from the butter flavoring, diacetyl, I wasn't too worried about the health effects of the popcorn roasting in our microwave oven almost every night.

But after reading this little tidbit by the American Council on Science and Health, I'm starting to worry....

One familiar (and sometimes effective) tactic that the chemical industry uses to defend its hazardous products is to claim that everything causes cancer, and the everything is bad for you if you eat, drink or inhale too much of it. Even too much water can kill you, after all. In other words don't let those activists scare you.

A corollary is that lots of things that those activists say are going to kill you occur naturally, in nature, in fact, they're practically organic.

So after writing reviewing Andrew Schneider's article earlier this week about the ravaged lungs of popcorn and other food workers from exposure to the butter-flavoring chemical diacetyl, it was with great interest that I read this emission from the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), which has good news for popcorn lovers:

A chemical, diacetyl, found naturally in butter and other foods, has been found to cause a fatal and rapidly-progressing lung disorder when it is present in the air at high concentrations in occupational settings. The connection to popcorn is that diacetyl is used in products like microwave popcorn (and some movie theater popcorn machines) to provide butter flavor.

The diacetyl story is a prime example of what ACSH has pointed out for years (see our reports on carcinogens, activists, and natural chemicals in your holiday dinner menu): while high doses of a chemical may impair health, the typical doses that consumers encounter in their foods or through other environmental contacts pose no risk.

ACSH,by the way, is an chemical industry funded "a consumer education consortium concerned with issues related to food, nutrition, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, lifestyle, the environment and health."

OK, now there are a few point that seem to be slightly distorted here. Just off the top of my head.

• Yes, diacetyl is found naturally in butter, but the diacetyl that's killing workers by destroying their lungs is man-made. (And "naturally" doesn't make something good. After all, asbestos occurs "naturally" as well)


• "The typical doses that consumers encounter in their foods or through other environmental contacts pose no risk." This is probably true. On the other hand, no one has really tested it. NIOSH "is not aware of any evidence to suggest danger to consumers in the preparation and consumption of microwave popcorn." NIOSH doesn't say there is no danger. The agency says it "is not aware of any evidence to suggest danger." Two different things. In 2004, EPA announced that it would study the type and amount of chemicals emitted from microwave popcorn bags and possible health effect on consumers. The study was supposed to be completed last year, but I haven't heard anything. Meanwhile, I'm telling my kids not to stick their heads in the bag of popcorn.
  


• "While high doses of a chemical may impair health, the typical doses that consumers encounter in their foods or through other environmental contacts pose no risk." This may also be true. On the other hand, the fact that a chemical can cause serious harm at a high dose over a relatively short period of time, does not mean that it can't cause serious harm at low doses over a longer period of time.

ACSH is most well known for it's Thanksgiving Dinner menu of carcinogens, which I guess is supposed to make you feel better about the chemical industry, although I'm not sure how.